Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 926 (AP)

A. P. STATE WAKF BOARD v. MOHEMMED SHAFI

2006-08-02

P.S.NARAYANA

body2006
P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD both the counsel. ( 2 ) AGGRIEVED by the order made in I. A. No. 370 of 2005 in r. A. No. 278 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City small Causes Court, Hyderabad, dated 30-09-2005, the Andhra pradesh State Wakf Board, represented by its Chief Executive officer, Nampally, Hyderabad, had preferred this Civil Revision petition. ( 3 ) THE revision petitioner as third party petitioner filed the aforesaid application under Order 1 Rule 10 r/w Section 151 C. P. C. requesting the Court to implead And,hra Pradesh State Wakf Board as respondent No. 2 in R. A. No. 278 of 2002. The learned Judge recorded certain reasons and ultimately dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is preferred. ( 4 ) SRI S. M. Subhani, the learned counsel representing the petitioner, would contend that the subject matter of the litigation is wakf property and an encroacher had jet out the property and the parties are fighting the litigation and unless the Andhra Pradesh state Wakf Board is permitted to come on record, the Wakf Board may not be able to put forth its contentions before the appellate authority. The learned counsel also placed strong reliance on md. AHEMD ALI v. ALASTU TALIMI TRUST, HYDERABAD 2004 (1) ALD 99 . ( 5 ) ON the contrary, Sri M. A. Basith, the learned counsel representing the 2nd respondent, would contend that a similar application, I. A. No. 895 of 2000 in RC. No. 174 of 1997 was filed and the same was dismissed and again, this application is being moved before the appellate authority. The counsel also would maintain that even otherwise the question of title cannot be gone into in these proceedings, at any rate, the Wakf Boad is entitled to institute a regular civil suit on the question of title. The learned counsel also would maintain that a suit in fact already had been instituted in relation thereto and hence, in any view of the matter, the impugned order needs no disturbance at the hands of this court. The learned counsel also would maintain that a suit in fact already had been instituted in relation thereto and hence, in any view of the matter, the impugned order needs no disturbance at the hands of this court. ( 6 ) THE revision petitioner as third party petitioner filed I. A. No. 370 of 2005 in R. A. No. 278 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Chief jude, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad to be impleaded as a party on the ground that the petitioner is a necessary party. It is stated that the institution of Dargah Hazrath Shah Nooruddin Abdul faiz along with Mosque, mulgies, samakhana etc. , were registered and notified as Wakf properties bearing Municipal Nos. 20-7-329 to 20-7-338, 20-7-668 and 20-7-669, situated at Fateh Darwaza, hyderabad and the said institution is a registered wakf by virtue of muntakab in file No. 340/2, Segha Aukhaf of 1350 Fasli, dated 1st amardad 1350 Fasli. It is also stated that the said property was surveyed by the Wakf Commissioner, Government of Andhra pradesh and issued report dated 19-09-1962 and it was published in andhra Pradesh Gazette No. 6-A, dated 9-2-1989 and there were some printing mistakes with regard to door numbers of the properties and as such, an errata was published in the Andhra pradesh Gazette No. 46, dated 14-11-2002. Thus, it is stated that the schedule property belongs to Wakf Board and none other else has any right over the said property. It is also stated that the last mutawalli was the father Mohd. Moizuddin Siddiqui and after his death, Mohd. Moizuddin filed O. S. No. 5305 of 1995 on the file of the x Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad to replace him as mutawalli after the death of his father and on contest, the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the said Mohd. Moizuddin filed an appeal in A. S. No. 53 of 2002, which is pending on the file of the additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Till today, the petitioner had not appointed anybody as Mutawalli and the institution together with attached properties are under the direct management of the Wakf Board. It is also stated that the 2nd respondent allegedly purchased the mulgies bearing Nos. 20-7-329 to 331, situated at fateh Darwaza and they are in occupation of the 1st respondent. Till today, the petitioner had not appointed anybody as Mutawalli and the institution together with attached properties are under the direct management of the Wakf Board. It is also stated that the 2nd respondent allegedly purchased the mulgies bearing Nos. 20-7-329 to 331, situated at fateh Darwaza and they are in occupation of the 1st respondent. The alleged purchase and letting out the property to 1st respondent is a collusive transaction. One Osman Ali filed eviction case and obtained possession of the mulgi bearing door No. 20-7-332 and the transactions are not binding on the petitioner/wakf Board since the properties are non alienable, the sale transaction, lease transactions etc. , are not binding on the Wakf Board and therefore, the 2nd respondent had no right over the schedule property to let out to the 1st respondent. During the course of regular duties on the basis of report dated 21-06-2000, the Executive Officer of the petitioner under report dated 21-08-2000 of the Inspector Auditor cum Rent collector, Circle No. 2 of Wakf Board, a notice, dated 06-11-2000 was issued to 1st respondent calling upon him to pay rents to the petitioner and in response to the said demand he is paying rents to the petitioner but filed a petition in RC No. 167 of 2000 to 170 of 2000 for deposit of rents before the Rent Controller. R. C. No. 169 of 2000 was disposed of on 17-7-2003 and permitted Mohd. Osman Ali to deposit rents till he is evicted by due process of law and the suits o. S. No. 167 of 2000, 168 of 2000 and 170 of 2000 are pending for adjudication. The 2nd respondent filed RC No. 174 of 1997 against shafi (1st respondent) in respect of mulgi No. 20-7-331 and the same was allowed ordering eviction and against which the present R. A is filed. Similarly, the other RCs filed by Nizam Ali and Mir Qader Ali are also pending. The 2nd respondent filed eviction petitions and the other tenants filed petitions for deposit without impleading the petitioner as owner of the premises and now Mohd. Iqbal Ali is bent upon selling away the property to the third party. Hence, the petitioner is a proper and necessary party. The 2nd respondent filed eviction petitions and the other tenants filed petitions for deposit without impleading the petitioner as owner of the premises and now Mohd. Iqbal Ali is bent upon selling away the property to the third party. Hence, the petitioner is a proper and necessary party. ( 7 ) THE second respondent filed a counter contending that the petitioner filed similar application in I. A. No. 895 of 2000 in r. C. No. 174 of 1997 and the same was dismissed on 23-07-2001 after hearing both sides and hence, the present application in the appeal is not maintainable and that the rights of the parties cannot be decided under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short the Act) and prayed for dismissal of the application. ( 8 ) THE learned Judge recorded reasons in detail and came to the conclusion that the title to the property cannot be decided by the authorities under the Act and the remedy of the third party, who is claiming right title over the property, would be elsewhere. Reliance was placed on MD. AHEMD ALIs case (1 supra), wherein it was held that Wakf Alastu Talimi Trust was created in 1934 and the trust deed was registered with Government. It was also notified as wakf by virtue of Gazette Notification in 1355f. When once the wakf is registered and entered in the register of Wakf, it need not be entered again under the provisions of subsequent Acts. When all the wakfs are exempted from the provisions of the Rent Control Act, the civil suit filed by the trust for evicting the tenants is maintainable. Reliance was also placed on SONI @ BHUTULASI v. KUNDA nageswara RAO 1991 (3)A. L. T 200 wherein it was held that in Rent Control proceedings for eviction of tenant by landlord, third party raising disputed question of title is not entitled to get impleaded and can seek relief in a regular civil sujt on the question of title. ( 9 ) IT is however brought to the notice to this Court that the revision petitioner had already instituted a suit in O. S. No. 29 of 2003 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Tribunal relating to the subject matter on the ground that the first respondent is an encroacher. ( 9 ) IT is however brought to the notice to this Court that the revision petitioner had already instituted a suit in O. S. No. 29 of 2003 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Tribunal relating to the subject matter on the ground that the first respondent is an encroacher. It is needless to say that these questions may have to be decided in the already instituted suit in O. S. No. 29 of 2003 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Tribunal. Hence, it is needless to say that the impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.