Telangana High Court
Mohammed Abdul Sattar vs The State Of Telangana on 12 February, 2025
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
WRIT APPEAL No.827 of 2024
JUDGMENT:
(Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul)
Sri Abdul Muqeeth Qureshi, learned Senior Counsel
representing Sri Md. Abdul Mateen Qureshi, learned counsel for
the appellant; Sri Ananthula Ravinder, learned Government
Pleader for B.C.Welfare, Social Welfare and Minority Welfare
Department, for respondent No.1; Sri Mohd. Ismail, learned
counsel for respondent No.2; and Sri Mohd. Asif Amjad, learned
counsel for respondent Nos.3, 4 and 6 to 10.
2. Heard on admission.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant assailed the order
dated 21.03.2024 passed in W.P.No.20048 of 2023, whereby the
learned Single Judge declined the relief sought by the appellant
(writ petitioner) and relegated the appellant to avail the remedy
before the Waqf Tribunal. The contention of the learned Senior
Counsel for the appellant is that the appellant was appointed as
Mutawalli and was never removed by any express order in exercise
of power under Section 64 of the Waqf Act, 1995. In absence
thereof, the respondents had no authority, jurisdiction and
competence to appoint a Committee by the order impugned in the
writ petition dated 26.06.2023. By placing reliance on a Division
Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in A.P.Wakf
Board v. Mohd. Hidyathulla 1 and another judgment of the
Andhra Pradesh High Court in Md. Saleem Ur Rahman v.
A.P.State Wakf Board 2, the learned Senior Counsel for the
appellant submits that there was no disputed question of fact and
therefore relegating the appellant to the Waqf Tribunal was not
proper. When principles of natural justice are grossly violated, the
writ petition is maintainable. Reliance is placed on the judgment
of the Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of
Trade Marks, Mumbai 3.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3, 4 and 6
to 10 urged that the direction of the learned Single Judge is in
consonance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in
Board of Waqf, West Bengal v. Anis Fatma Begum 4 and the
1 AIR 1974 AP 287
2 2007 (4) ALD 527
3 (1998) 8 SCC 1
4 (2010) 14 SCC 588
Court of first instance in relation to all the matters pertaining to
Waqf is the Waqf Tribunal and the Civil Court and High Court
should not straight away entertain the petition.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the
aforesaid judgment of Supreme Court in Anis Fatma Begum
(supra) is not in relation to Mutawalli and therefore is
distinguishable.
6. The parties have confined their arguments to the extent
indicated above and no other point is pressed.
7. The Supreme Court has drawn the curtains on this aspect
in its judgment in Anis Fatma Begum (supra), the relevant
portion of which reads thus:-
"7. The dispute in the present case relates to a wakf. In our
opinion, all matters pertaining to wakfs should be filed in the
first instance before the Wakf Tribunal constituted under
Section 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995 and should not be
entertained by the civil court or by the High Court
straightaway under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It
may be mentioned that the Wakf Act, 1995 is a recent
parliamentary statute which has constituted a Special Tribunal for
deciding disputes relating to wakfs. The obvious purpose of
constituting such a Tribunal was that a lot of cases relating to
wakfs were being filed in the courts in India and they were
occupying a lot of time of all the courts in the country which
resulted in increase in pendency of cases in the courts. Hence, a
Special Tribunal has been constituted for deciding such matters.
8. Section 83(1) of the Wakf Act, 1995 states:
"83. Constitution of tribunals, etc.--(1) The State
Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette,
constitute as many tribunals as it may think fit, for the
determination of any dispute, question or other matter
relating to a wakf or wakf property under this Act and
define the local limits and jurisdiction under this Act of
each of such Tribunals."
9. Section 84 of the Act states:
"84. Tribunal to hold proceedings expeditiously and
to furnish to the parties copies of its decision.--
Whenever an application is made to a tribunal for the
determination of any dispute, question or other matter
relating to a wakf or wakf property it shall hold its
proceedings as expeditiously as possible and shall as soon
as practicable, on the conclusion of the hearing of such
matter give its decision in writing and furnish a copy of
such decision to each of the parties to the dispute."
10. Thus, the Wakf Tribunal can decide all disputes, questions
or other matters relating to a wakf or wakf property. The words
"any dispute, question or other matters relating to a wakf or wakf
property" are, in our opinion, words of very wide connotation. Any
dispute, question or other matters whatsoever and in whatever
manner which arises relating to a wakf or wakf property can be
decided by the Wakf Tribunal. The word "wakf" has been defined
in Section 3(r) of the Wakf Act, 1995 and hence once the property
is found to be a wakf property as defined in Section 3(r), then any
dispute, question or other matter relating to it should be agitated
before the Wakf Tribunal.
11. Under Section 83(5) of the Wakf Act, 1995 the Tribunal
has all powers of the civil court under the Code of Civil
Procedure, and hence it has also powers under Order 39 Rules 1,
2 and 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to grant temporary
injunctions and enforce such injunctions. Hence, a full-fledged
remedy is available to any party if there is any dispute, question
or other matter relating to a wakf or wakf property."
(Emphasis supplied)
8. A plain reading of the above paragraphs and, more
particularly, the highlighted portion shows that the Supreme
Court, in no uncertain terms, made it clear that in relation to all
the matters pertaining to Waqf, the Court of first instance should
be the Waqf Tribunal and the High Court and the Civil Court
should not straightaway entertain the petition. In view of this
binding judgment, considering the disputes relating to Waqf, the
judgment of Whirlpool Corporation (supra) is of no assistance to
the appellant. So far the judgments of the Andhra Pradesh High
Court cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant in
Mohd. Hidyathulla (supra) and Md. Saleem Ur Rahman (supra)
are concerned, both the judgments were passed before the binding
judgment of the Supreme Court in Anis Fatma Begum (supra)
was pronounced. Thus, in view of the dicta in Anis Fatma
Begum (supra), no fault can be found in the order of the learned
Single Judge relegating the appellant to the Waqf Tribunal.
9. Hence, the admission is declined and the Writ Appeal is
dismissed. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________
SUJOY PAUL, ACJ
__________________________
RENUKA YARA, J
12.02.2025
vs/sa
