Illegal constructions on notified Waqf property without requisite permissions from the Waqf Board and local authorities are unauthorized and must be removed. Disputes regarding the removal of a Mutawalli must be adjudicated by the Waqf Board or the competent Waqf Tribunal.

ORDER:

The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to stop the illegal constructions on the graveyard situated on the northern side and southern side of the Flyover Bridge at Dabeerpura, Hyderabad, and consequently to direct the respondents to demolish the said illegal constructions, and construct a boundary wall around the graveyard, and also to remove the respondent No.7 from the Mutawalliship for his illegal sacrilegious activities and misuse of powers and position against the waqf property.

2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel Syed Kareemuddin for petitioner would contend that the unofficial respondents have illegally constructing a building on the waqf property. The learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the proceedings where the 2nd respondent-Waqf Board had constituted a Task Force Committee to strengthen and enforce the existing arrangements for protection of waqf lands in the State. It is further submitted that a joint report of the Chief Inspector Auditor- cum-Inspector Auditor, Circle-4, Task Force Officer (V&E), and Surveyor, Waqfs, in respect of the subject property, was submitted to vide the 2nd respondent F.No.9/TF/Dblpr/G.Y & Takia/2013, dated 14.12.2013. As per the said joint report, the concerned waqf institution, where the illegal and unauthorized construction was being carried on, had been notified as waqf property as well as a graveyard under A.P.Gazette No.27-C, Part-II, dated 08.07.1982 in page No.43 at Sl.No.865, and the same being a waqf and graveyard, no construction will be allowed by anybody including the local body, without obtaining prior approval or permission from Waqf Board i.e., 2nd respondent, as well as due permission of GHMC authorities.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner also contended that the 7th respondent, who is Mutawalli and caretaker of waqf property, was also influenced by the respondent No.8. In that view of the matter, the present writ petition has been filed.

4. Learned Standing Counsel Mr. Farhan Azam Khan appearing for Waqf Board i.e., for respondent No.2, would contend that the subject property is a waqf property, which is notified as per the A.P. Gazette No.27-C, Part-II, dated 08.07.1982 in page No.43 at Sl.No.865, as per which, no construction can be allowed in the graveyard by anybody or local body or by unauthorized persons without there being any approval or sanction by the respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4.

5. Learned Standing Counsel Mr. Raparthi Venkatesh for GHMC for respondent Nos.3 and 4, would contend that in fact, after filing of the writ petition, the GHMC officials have inspected the subject premises, and found that there is a slab of one floor and no further construction is going on from 2013 onwards, and as to whether the said land belongs to Waqf Board is not in the notice of the respondent Nos.3 and 4, and it is stated that the respondent Nos.7 & 8 do not have any valid permission from the GHMC authorities for construction of the same, and prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

6. Evidently, even as per the Task Force Report submitted to the 2nd respondent, the property, where the alleged illegal and unauthorized construction was being carried on by the 7th respondent at the behest of the respondent No.8, is a waqf property vide notified A.P. Gazette No.27-C, Part-II, dated 08.07.1982 in page No.43 at Sl.No.865. However, the 7th respondent, who is Mutawalli, cannot act against to the interests of the 2nd respondent and in collusion with the unofficial respondent No.8 in constructing a building in a waqf property, that too without there being any sanction or approval from the 2nd respondent, and without obtaining any permission from the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, no construction can be allowed on waqf property. In that view of the matter, the assertion of the learned counsel for petitioner appears to be germane and valid.

7. In the ligh