Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 139 (AP)

Shehri Jamiat-E-Ahlehadees v. State Of A. P.

2005-02-16

body2005
( 1 ) THE petitioner is an organization registered with an object of working with the welfare of the Muslim Community, for protection of the wakf properties. It challenges the action of the A. P. Wakf Board, in constituting a District Wakf Committee for Kurnool District, through proceedings dated 4. 02. 2005. ( 2 ) THE petitioner contends that the Government issued G. O. Ms. No. 59, dated 22. 04. 1997, conferring the status of the District Wakf Officer, on the respective District Revenue Officers, and they are endowed with the responsibility to protect the wakf properties and to maintain other Muslim religious organizations in the concerned Districts. It is alleged that even while such an effective arrangement is in vogue, the second respondent issued the impugned proceedings, constituting a District Wakf Committee, with respondents 3 to 14. The petitioner urges that the impugned proceedings are without any basis and contrary to the provisions of the Wakf Act, 1995. ( 3 ) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Wakf Board. The second respondent constituted the District Wakf Committee for Kurnool District, through the impugned proceedings dated 4. 02. 2005. The term of the committee is stipulated as two years. It is clearly mentioned that the committee is constituted in exercise of powers under Section 18 of the Wakf Act. Section 18 of the Wakf Act reads as under: committees of the Board:- (1) The Board may, whenever it considers necessary, establish either generally or for a particular purpose or for any specified area or areas committees for the supervision of wakfs. (2) The constitution, functions and duties and the term of office of such committees shall be determined from time to time by the Board: provided that it shall not be necessary for the members of such committees to be members of the Board. ( 4 ) FROM a reading of the same, it is evident that the second respondent is competent to constitute committees for any particular purpose, or for any specific area. The nature of functions to be assigned to such committees is left to the discretion of the second respondent. The petitioner is not able to point out, as to how the impugned order does not conform to Section 18 of Wakf Act. ( 5 ) IT is true that the first respondent issued G. O. Ms. The nature of functions to be assigned to such committees is left to the discretion of the second respondent. The petitioner is not able to point out, as to how the impugned order does not conform to Section 18 of Wakf Act. ( 5 ) IT is true that the first respondent issued G. O. Ms. No. 59, dated 22. 04. 1997, conferring the status of District Wakf Officer on the District Revenue Officers. There does not exist any overlapping of the functions of the District Wakf Officer, so constituted, on the one hand and the District Wakf on the other hand. Even assuming that the arrangement under G. O. Ms. No. 59 overlaps with the functions of the District Wakf Committee, it needs to be noted that there is no statutory basis for issuance of G. O. Ms. No. 59. At the most, it is an informal and non-statutory arrangement. Such arrangement, by its very nature is subject to any step that may be taken in accordance with the Wakf Act. ( 6 ) THE impugned order does not propose to supersede the arrangement made under G. O. Ms. No. 59. There is nothing in law, which prevents from the District Wakf Officer on the one hand, and the District Wakf Committee on the other, function in coordination with each other, at tandem. Further, no prejudice as such can be said to have been caused, either to the petitioner, or to the community at large, on account of constitution of the District Wakf Committee. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.