JUDGMENT : Biswanath Somadder, J. 1. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and upon perusing the papers before us, it appears that the instant writ appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 26.09.2018 passed by a learned Single Judge in WP (C) No. 107 of 2016 (Shri Md. Saleem Vs. State of Meghalaya & Ors). 2. The appellant before us is the Chief Executive Officer, Meghalaya Board of Waqf, Shillong (being respondent No. 3 in the writ proceeding). For convenience, the impugned judgment and order dated 26.09.2018, is setout hereinbelow in its entirety:- "Heard Mr. K. Paul, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Mr. K.P. Bhattacharjee, learned GA appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1 & 4 and Ms. Tenzing Yangkyi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2 & 3. 2. The brief fact of the petitioner's case in a nutshell is that: "This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus/Prohibition or any other writ or directions/orders. The brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner is the owner of the property, alleged to be as Wakf property under administration and control of the Meghalaya State Wakf Board. That the Meghalaya Wakf Board (Respondent No. 2), not acting in compliance with the express provision of the Wakf Act of 1954 as well the Act of 1995 as amended by the Wakf (Amendment) Act 2013, has been managing the Wakf properties illegally constituted. Furthermore, no survey of Wakf or registration of Wakfs has been done in the State of Meghalaya till date and the Respondent 2 authorities has been illegally usurping office and continuing to exercise powers under the Wakf Act, inspite of there being no rules/regulations, etc for exercise of powers by the Meghalaya Board of Wakf. Thus being highly dissatisfied and aggrieved by the absolute non observance of the statutory requirements stipulate under law by the Respondents and illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional action of the Respondents, the petitioner approaches this Hon'ble Court for redressal of his genuine grievances." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that till date the Government has failed to constitute the Survey Commissioner of Wakfs property as required under Sections 4 and 5 of the Wakf Act, 1995. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that till date the Government has failed to constitute the Survey Commissioner of Wakfs property as required under Sections 4 and 5 of the Wakf Act, 1995. As a result, the Wakf Board unnecessarily harassed the petitioner, though it does not fall as the Wakf property. 4. The learned GA also submits that he is not aware about the current situation whether the Survey Commissioner has been appointed or not. If it is so, the State Government of Meghalaya is hereby directed to constitute the Survey Commissioner of Wakf property as required under Section 4 and publication of list of Wakf as required under Section 5 of the Wakf Act, 1995 within 15(fifteen) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order. 5. In the meantime, the Wakf Board is directed not to interfere with the property of the petitioner. 6. With this observation and direction the petition is allowed and stands disposed of." 3. A plain reading of the judgment and order reveals that the learned Single Judge directed the State Government to constitute a Survey Commissioner of Waqf property, as required under section 4 and publish a list of Waqfs as required under section 5 of the Waqf Act, 1995, within a certain timeframe. The learned Single Judge also directed the Waqf Board not to interfere with the property of the writ petitioner in the meantime. 4. The Survey Commissioner of Waqf is required to complete the survey within a year's timeframe as stipulated in the Waqf Act, 1995 (as amended till date). If the Survey Commissioner was not appointed at the time of passing the impugned judgment and order but was subsequently appointed within the timeframe as stipulated by the learned Single Judge, the Survey Commissioner ought to have completed the survey of the property-in-question within a year from the date of being appointed. If survey of the property-in-question is yet to be completed, the same shall be completed within the shortest possible time, preferably within a period of eight weeks, but not later than twelve weeks from date of communication of a photostat certified copy of this order. Once the survey is completed, the Survey Commissioner shall take further steps in accordance with law. Once the survey is completed, the Survey Commissioner shall take further steps in accordance with law. We make it clear that so far as the issue is to whether the property-in-question is actually a Waqf property or not is not being determined by us in the present proceeding. The interim protection granted in favour of the respondent No. 3 (being the writ petitioner) by the learned Single Judge shall continue only till the timeframe as specified hereinabove or till completion of survey of the property-in-question, whichever is earlier. 5. The impugned judgment and order stands modified only to the extent indicated above and the appeal stands disposed of accordingly.