Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(AP) 16927
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J
K M SHAKEEL SAFI – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH – Respondent
WP 22326/2024
V HIMABINDU, P V RAGHU RAM, GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE, SHAIK KHAJA BASHA
Notified waqf properties cannot be alienated by any Mutawalli; a thorough enquiry is mandated for addressing allegations of mismanagement.
Headnote:(A) Waqf Act, 1995 - Sections 46, 46(2), 70, and 71 - Writ petition seeking action against Mutawalli for irregularities - Court directed Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to complete the enquiry regarding allegations of mismanagement and misappropriation of waqf properties, ensuring safeguarding of the institution's assets. (Paras 1, 10, 11)
(B) Legal principles - Notified waqf properties cannot be alienated by any Mutawalli or Sajjada Nasheen - The court emphasized the necessity of a detailed enquiry to ascertain the nature of irregularities and mismanagement alleged against the Mutawalli. (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The writ petition was filed to address alleged irregularities by the Mutawalli of a renowned Wakf institution, including mismanagement and illegal sales of properties, after the authorities failed to act on the petitioner's requests for enquiry.
Findings of Court:
The court found merit in the petitioner's claims and ordered an enquiry into the alleged irregularities, highlighting the need for safeguarding waqf properties.
Issues: The main issues included the alleged mismanagement by the Mutawalli and the inaction of the authorities in addressing the complaints.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that notified waqf properties are protected from alienation by the Mutawalli, and a thorough enquiry is necessary to resolve the allegations of mismanagement.
Result: Writ petition disposed of with directions for enquiry.
ORDER:-
1. This writ petition is filed claiming the following relief: “…To issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of Respondent Nos.1 to 3 in taking action against the 5th Respondent for his committing irregularities, which are highly detrimental to the 4th Respondent institution, being bad, illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the Wakf Act, 1995 and consequentially seeking direction to the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 (a) to order for enquiry on serious irregularities, mismanagement, misappropriation, selling away the properties of 4th Respondent institution and (b) to remove the 5th respondent as Mutawalli of 4th Respondent institution and (c) to appoint a suitable Mutawalli for its better management and for protection of its properties and to pass such order or orders...”
2. Heard Sri V. Venugopala Rao, learned senior counsel representing Ms.V. Himabindu, learned counsel on record for the petitioner, Sri Shaik Khaja Basha, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Sri K.S. Gopala Krishnan, learned counsel representing Sri P.V.Raghu Ram, learned counsel for Respondent No. 5.
3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Respondent No.4 is a renowned Wakf Institution in the State of Andhra Pradesh, popularly known as “Ameen Peer Durgah and Pedda Durgah” situated at Kadapa Town. Respondent No.4 institution has been commanded high reputation among the Muslim minority community as well as other community people and attracts devotees in and around the country more particularly within the Rayalaseema region consisting of Kadapa, Kurnool, Anantapur and Chittoor Districts.
4. Learned senior counsel further submits that the subject institution was initially notified as Wakf institution vide Gazette Notification dated 26.03.1964, whereas at serial No.95 being notified as “Dargah Hazarath Khaza Peerullah Mohammed Mohammudulah Hussaini Chisti Naib Rassol Khutbe Zaman Maqdumullah”. Thereafter, there was an addendum vide Gazette Notification dated 10.02.2011 in which the name of Respondent No.4 earlier notified in the year 1964 is amended as “Astana e-Maqdoomlllahhhi along with Dargah Hazarth Khaja Peerulla Mohammed Hussaini Chisti”. Moreover, Respondent No.4 institution owns a large extent of waqf properties. All the properties were duly notified under the provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995 by way of Gazette notification dated 26.03.1964. Since then, the notified properties are declared as wakf properties of Respondent No.4 institution.
5. Learned senior counsel further submits that Respondent No.5 herein was appointed as Mutawalli of Respondent No.4 Durgah vide Notification dated 07.04.2011. Since then, Respondent No.5 has been functioning as Mutawalli of Respondent No.4 institution. While so, Respondent No.5 being Mutawalli, he has been committing serious irregularities, mismanagement, misappropriation, and also found that there are illegal sale transactions of the major portion of institution lands. He further submits that the Mutawalli / Respondent No.5 misrepresented the Revenue Authorities and got mutated his name as pattadar in the Revenue records instead of the Respondent No.4 institution name and may alienate the subject lands as if it were his own personal lands, anticipating the same, the petitioner requested Respondent Nos.1 to 3 for conducting an enquiry and also for appropriate action. But, Respondent Nos.1 to 3 did not consider the request of the petitioner. Hence the writ petition.
6. Whereas, the learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 submitted the written instructions issued by the District Minorities Welfare Officer & Additional District Waqf Officer, Y.S.R. Kadapa District, vide proceedings IAW/06/Dargah/KDP/2024, dated 22.10.2024, wherein it is stated that, considering the complaint/request of the petitioner, Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are proceeding with the enquiry against the functioning of Responden
