The Masjide Mohalla Dharugally ... vs Shaik Wahab And 5 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 1331 Tel

         THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                       AND
              THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI


                   WRIT APPEAL No.354 of 2023

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)


        Heard Mr. Shafath Ahmed Khan, learned counsel for

the appellants; Mr. P.Ram Prasad, learned Government

Pleader for Social Welfare for respondent No.4; and

Ms. Naseem Ara, learned Standing Counsel for respondent

No.5.

2. This appeal is directed against the final order dated

14.11.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing

of W.P.No.40545 of 2022 filed by respondents No.1 to 3 as

the writ petitioners.

3. Respondents No.1 to 3 had filed the related writ

petition seeking a direction to the Telangana State Waqf

Board and others including appellant No.1 to consider

their representations dated 03.03.2022, 30.07.2022 and

08.08.2022 before allotting a shop in the shopping complex

attached to appellant No.1 i.e., Masjid-e-Mohalla

Dharugally.

4. Basically, grievance expressed by respondents No.1

to 3 was that due process was not being followed for

allotment of shops in the shopping complex attached to

appellant No.1 premises. Learned Single Judge recorded

the grievance of respondents No.1 to 3 as under:

3. It is the grievance of the petitioners that in the property belonging to respondent No.4-Mosque, though construction of 13 shops in two floors have already been completed in the year 2021, so far respondent Nos.2 to 4 have not taken any steps for allotment of the subject shops as per the procedure contemplated under the Waqf Properties Lease Rules 2014 (for short, 'the Rules, 2014') made under the Waqf Act, 1995. On the other hand, respondent No.5, who is the President of respondent No.4-Mosque, is proposing to allot the subject shops to third parties, without following due process of law, at cheaper price on lease basis. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.

4. A perusal of the averment made in the affidavit filed in support of petition, it shows that the minimum rent for each shop would fetch more than Rs.50,000/- per month. But, the respondents, instead of

following the due process of law for allotment of subject shops on lease basis, they are likely to allot the said shops in a clandestine manner and without following the due process law.

5. Learned Standing Counsel who had represented

Telangana State Waqf Board submitted that construction

of 13 shops was completed. However, appellants were yet

to take steps for allotment of the said shops on lease basis

or otherwise. It was submitted that as and when

appellants initiated steps for allotment of shops,

respondents No.1 to 3 would be were free to participate in

such allotment process.

6. In the light of the above, learned Single Judge

disposed of the writ petition in the following manner:

6. Taking into consideration the submissions made on either side, especially the submissions made by learned Standing Counsel, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent Nos.2 to 4 not to allot the subject shops to any third parties without following the due process of law, as contemplated under the Rules, 2014 and in case, if any such process is initiated for allotment of the subject shops, the petitioners are at liberty to participate in said process, in accordance with law.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that

appellants were arrayed as respondents No.4 and 5 in the

writ petition but without issuing notice to them and

without giving them an opportunity of hearing, the writ

petition was finally disposed of. He submits that contrary

to what was contended before the learned Single Judge,

only three shops are ready for allotment; besides, one hall

where further shops are required to be constructed. In

this connection, appellants have issued newspaper

advertisement, whereafter 56 applications have been

received.

8. On going through the final direction of the learned

Single Judge, we find that learned Single Judge had

directed appellant No.1, amongst others, not to allot shops

to any third party without following the due process of law

as contemplated under the Waqf Properties Lease Rules,

2014. There is no direction of learned Single Judge that

any preference should be given to respondents No.1

to 3.

9. We make it clear that it would be open to the

appellants to make the allotments strictly in accordance

with the aforesaid Rules.

10. Subject to the above clarification, writ appeal is

disposed of.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

______________________________________ N. TUKARAMJI, J 20.03.2023 vs