ORDER : NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J. 1. The Petitioner challenges the validity of proceedings dated 28.12.2023, issued by the Respondents, to remove alleged encroachments and initiate action under Section 52-A of the WAKF ACT , 1995. He contends that the subject lands, granted as Madad-e-Mash Inam to his great-grandfather by the Nizam, are private ancestral properties and not Wakf lands. Occupancy Rights Certificates (ORCs) were issued in 1977 in favor of his father and uncle, based on a No Objection Certificate from the Wakf Board itself, which acknowledged that the lands were not attached to any religious institution. Although these lands were wrongly notified as Wakf property in the A.P. Gazette in 2002, that notification was quashed by the High Court in 2016, and the decision was upheld in appeal. Since then, no re-survey or fresh notification has been issued, and thus, the lands cannot be treated as Wakf property in law. 1.1 The current action is based on a false and unilateral report prepared behind the Petitioner’s back in response to a malicious complaint by his cousin, and was carried out without following the statutory procedure under Section 54 of the WAKF ACT , which requires notice and a tribunal order prior to eviction. The Petitioner, who has been in peaceful and continuous possession of the lands for decades and is cultivating crops, asserts that the impugned actions are without jurisdiction, violate due process, and infringe upon his constitutional rights under Articles 14 and 300A. He seeks a writ of mandamus to restrain the Respondents from interfering with his possession and to declare the proceedings arbitrary, illegal, and unconstitutional. 2. Respondent No. 4 filed a counter-affidavit, primarily contending that the writ petition is not maintainable, that the documents relied upon are forged, and that the Petitioner’s claims are inconsistent and false. It is asserted that the land is Wakf property (a Qazath Service Inam, which is a religious endowment), and that the Petitioner’s family, being mere shareholders (Shikmidars), has no right to possess or claim ownership of the subject property. 2.1 The Respondent contends that the very document relied on by the Petitioner—namely, the 1977 ORC—is a forged document. There is evidence, it is claimed, that the Petitioner’s father made repeated and unsuccessful attempts to obtain a genuine ORC from the authorities in 2005, 2012, and 2013. 2.1 The Respondent contends that the very document relied on by the Petitioner—namely, the 1977 ORC—is a forged document. There is evidence, it is claimed, that the Petitioner’s father made repeated and unsuccessful attempts to obtain a genuine ORC from the authorities in 2005, 2012, and 2013. It is further alleged that the Petitioner submitted a manipulated version of the Muntaqub (a historical revenue record), wherein the original survey numbers were written using different ink, to support his false claim. It is also asserted that the Petitioner and his family have frequently altered their position in various courts—at times admitting the land is Wakf property, and at other times claiming it is private patta land—to suit their convenience. 2.2 It is contended that the Petitioner’s family has filed over 46 cases regarding the subject land, thereby abusing the legal process, and continues to illegally hold onto the land. The land, it is claimed, was granted for the religious office of "Qazi" of Bodhan, and therefore qualifies as Wakf property. It is further alleged that Khaja Khaleeluddin (i.e., the father of Respondent No. 12) was the rightful Inamdar (holder of office and land), not the Petitioner’s father, Khaja Jaleeluddin, who was only a Shikmidar entitled to a share of the profits, but not to possession or ownership of the land. It is stated that his later appointment as Muthawalli (manager) was illegal and was subsequently set aside by the Wakf Tribunal. 2.3 The Respondent contends that the Petitioner’s current possession of the land amounts to illegal encroachment on Wakf property, and that the impugned order passed by the Chief Executive Officer is a lawful step to take the land back into government custody to protect the Wakf. Since the Petitioner is challenging an order related to Wakf property, it is argued that the appropriate legal remedy lies in filing an appeal before the Wakf Tribunal, not in invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The Respondent, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition and for vacation of the interim orders passed earlier. 3. Respondent No. 12 also filed a counter-affidavit, reiterating that the subject lands are Wakf properties (Islamic charitable endowments), granted to support the religious office of Qazi (Qazath), and are not the personal properties of the Petitioner. The Respondent, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition and for vacation of the interim orders passed earlier. 3. Respondent No. 12 also filed a counter-affidavit, reiterating that the subject lands are Wakf properties (Islamic charitable endowments), granted to support the religious office of Qazi (Qazath), and are not the personal properties of the Petitioner. It is contended that the Petitioner is attempting to illegally claim ownership of the subject lands, and that he has forged and fabricated documents and adopted inconsistent legal stands across various proceedings. 3.1 It is claimed that the lands are Qazath Service Inam lands, granted by the Government to support the hereditary Qazi of Bodhan in performing religious and judicial duties. The land, it is argued, is held in trust for institutional religious purposes and therefore cannot be owned privately, partitioned, or sold. The Muntaqab is alleged to be a forged document, with manipulated entries using different inks, and the 1977 ORC is said to be fake and fabricated. It is argued that the Petitioner’s father’s repeated and failed attempts to secure a fresh ORC from the authorities proves the 1977 ORC is inauthentic. 3.2 It is further submitted that the Petitioner and his father have filed over 46 cases and representations to assert false claims and grab the land, and that in previous proceedings, including a writ petition and in profit-sharing receipts, they have themselves admitted the land is Wakf property. It is contended that the Chief Executive Officer of the Wakf Board passed the impugned order based on a report concluding that the Petitioner is an encroacher, and that the Wakf Board has the authority to reclaim such land. It is also noted that the District Collector rejected the Petitioner’s application for Pattadar Passbook, citing the fake ORC. 3.3 It is finally contended that the Petitioner suppressed material facts to obtain an interim order from this Court on 05.01.2024, halting action on the impugned order, and the Respondent prays for vacation of the said interim order. 4. The Petitioner filed a reply affidavit, asserting that the subject land was never Wakf property and that the Wakf Board lacks jurisdiction to issue the impugned order. 4. The Petitioner filed a reply affidavit, asserting that the subject land was never Wakf property and that the Wakf Board lacks jurisdiction to issue the impugned order. It is claimed that the land is Madad-e-Mash (i.e., a personal, hereditary, and unconditional grant for sustenance), supported by Munthakab 2506 of 1295H, and that it is false to describe the land as a Qazath Service Inam, which would render it a conditional and religious endowment. 4.1 The Petitioner has placed on record the original Munthakab (historical revenue record), and a 1977 proceeding of the A.P. Wakf Board acknowledging the land as Madad-e-Mash and issuing a No Objection Certificate. Additional revenue records and official reports categorizing the land as Inam or Mafi Inam (unconditional grants) are also relied upon. 4.2 It is submitted that the Respondents’ own family members previously treated the land as private property and sold parts of it. The Petitioner argues that the entire basis for the Wakf Board’s claim is a now-quashed gazette notification (A.P. Gazette 40-A), struck down by the High Court in previous judgments. As such, the land cannot legally be treated as Wakf property, and the Board’s actions are ultra vires. 4.3 It is further asserted that a fundamental requirement for Wakf is a clear act of dedication (e.g., a Wakfnama). The Petitioner obtained information under the RTI Act confirming that the Wakf Board possesses no foundational documents—no Wakfnama, no details of a donor, and no proof of dedication. The only evidence was the now-nullified Gazette notification. 4.4 The Petitioner denies any forgery of documents and, on the contrary, alleges that it was Respondent No. 12’s father who fraudulently obtained the ORC without the knowledge of the Petitioner’s father. The long list of cases cited by the Respondents is said to be a diversion from the central legal issue: the foundational Wakf notification is no longer in force. Therefore, the Wakf Board has no authority to proceed under the WAKF ACT , particularly when it has itself admitted under RTI that it has no proof that the land was ever dedicated to God. The impugned order is, therefore, illegal and must be set aside. 5. Heard Mr. A. Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms. Pratusha Boppana, learned counsel on record for the Petitioner; Mr. Seetharama Murthy, learned Senior Counsel representing the counsel for the unofficial Respondents; and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. 6. The impugned order is, therefore, illegal and must be set aside. 5. Heard Mr. A. Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms. Pratusha Boppana, learned counsel on record for the Petitioner; Mr. Seetharama Murthy, learned Senior Counsel representing the counsel for the unofficial Respondents; and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. 6. Learned counsels have made elaborate contentions, consistent with the pleadings, and referred to various documents placed on record in support of the petition. 7. At the outset, it is to be noted that the core issue in this case pertains to the true nature and legal status of the subject land. The Petitioner claims that the land is Madad-e-Mash (a personal, hereditary, and unconditional grant), whereas the Respondents claim it is a Qazath Service Inam (a grant conditional upon performing the religious/judicial duties of a Qazi, thereby making it a religious endowment or Wakf). 7.1 The Petitioner bases his claim on the Munthakab (a historical revenue document) and the ORC issued in 1977, which he claims was based on a No Objection Certificate issued by the Wakf Board itself. The Respondents seriously dispute these documents, arguing that if the 1977 ORC were genuine, there would have been no need for subsequent failed attempts to obtain an ORC in 2005, 2012, and 2013. 7.2 The genuineness of the Munthakab, the legitimacy of the1977 ORC, and the nature of the land as either Madad-e-Mash or Qazath Service Inam are disputed factual issues. The Petitioner also contends that there is no Wakfnama, donor information, or proof of dedication to God, which is essential for establishing Wakf. The Respondents counter that being a Service Inam, a separate Wakfnama is unnecessary, as the very nature of the grant suffices to establish a religious endowment. 7.3 Whether the Petitioner’s father was an Inamdar or a Shikmidar, and whether the land is alienable or held in trust, are also seriously contested questions. 8. This Court, in a summary proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot act as a fact-finding authority. Unless the relevant facts are clearly discernible from the documents that are admitted without disputing, this Court cannot be expected to discern or infer facts by a mere visual examination of the material sought to be relied on. 8. This Court, in a summary proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot act as a fact-finding authority. Unless the relevant facts are clearly discernible from the documents that are admitted without disputing, this Court cannot be expected to discern or infer facts by a mere visual examination of the material sought to be relied on. The central dispute in this case revolves around the nature of the land and the question of whether the Petitioner or his ancestors held shareholder rights (shikmidar), or ownership, or possessory, or alienable rights. Given the factual matrix and serious rebuttal, this Court is of the view that a comprehensive enquiry following due procedure prescribed in law is required to determine the genuineness of the respective claims. 8.1 Whether the land is Madad-e-Mash or Qazath Service Inam whether the Petitioner’s father was an Inamdar or a Shikmidar; whether the Munthakab and the 1977 ORC confer title as claimed—or are, as alleged, forged—are all questions of fact that cannot be determined merely based on a visual examination of the documents / evidence being relied on by the parties in this writ petition, especially in the face of serious contestation. 9. At this stage, it is appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Board of Wakf, West Bengal v. Anis Fatma Begum , (2010) 14 SCC 588 , wherein it was held as follows: “9. The dispute in the present case relates to a Wakf. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. Section 83 (1) of the WAKF ACT , 1995 states, "83. Hence, a special Tribunal has been constituted for deciding such matters. 12. Section 83 (1) of the WAKF ACT , 1995 states, "83. Constitution of Tribunals, etc. - (1) The State Government shall, by notification if 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 or such Tribunals." 13. 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". 14. 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. 15. 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 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure 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. 16. 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. 16. We may further clarify that the party can approach the Wakf Tribunal, even if no order has been passed under the Act, against which he/she is aggrieved. It may be mentioned that Sections 83 (1) and 84 of the Act do not confine the jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal to the determination of the correctness or otherwise of an order passed under the Act. No doubt Section 83 (2) refers to the orders passed under the Act, but, in our opinion, Sections 83 (1) and 84 of the Act are independent provisions, and they do not require an order to be passed under the Act before invoking the jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal. Hence, it cannot be said that a party can approach the Wakf Tribunal only against an order passed under the Act. In our opinion, even if no order has been passed under the Act, the party can approach the Wakf Tribunal for the determination of any dispute, question or other matters relating to a Wakf or Wakf property, as the plain language of Sections 83 (1) and 84 indicates. 17. We may clarify that under the proviso to Section 83 (9) of the WAKF ACT , 1995 a party aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal can approach the High Court which can call for the records for satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of the decision of the Tribunal. This provision make it clear that the intention of Parliament is that the party who wishes to raise any dispute or matter relating to a Wakf or Wakf property should first approach the Tribunal before approaching the High Court. 10. In the instant case, though the writ petition is maintainable in view of the impugned order passed by an authority under the Statute, however, considering the seriously disputed questions of fact that cannot be decided in this writ petition, and further considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anis Fathima (supra), this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition and instead relegates the parties to approach the Wakf Tribunal under Section 83 of the WAKF ACT . 11. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, with liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Wakf Tribunal under Section 83 of the WAKF ACT . No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.