THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CRP NO.2239 OF 2006 08-07-2010 Between: Nazeeruddind Farooq and others ..petitioners Vs. The Chief Executive Officer, A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad and others …Respondents. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CRP NO.2239 OF 2006 ORAL ORDER This is another round of a misconceived litigative strategy, in a revision filed under Section 83(9) of the A.P.Wakf Act,1995 (for brevity “the Act”), directed against the order dated 01-03-2006 of the learned A.P. Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad (the Tribunal) rejecting O.A 5 of 2001 filed by the revision petitioners. The O.A. was filed against an order dated 07-02-2001 issued under the signature of the 1st respondent herein, impleaded as the 1st respondent in O.A.5 of 2001. By the order dated 07-02-2001 the A.P Wakf Board (Board) in purported exercise of powers under Section 54(3) of the Act ordered the petitioners to remove the encroachment over the wakf land of an extent of 32 square yards and handover the vacant possession to the Inspector Auditor Wakf, Visakhapatnam within the stipulated time failing which the petitioners were notified that steps would be taken under the provisions of the Act for their eviction. In the notice, the board asserted that the specified land is a burial ground of Kothapet situated in a ward of Maharanipet, opposite Purna Market in Ward No.3, Block No.20 in TS No.656, notified as a wakf property and published as such in the A.P. Gazette No.47 dated 30-01-1961 at page Nos.1352 and 1353. The order dated 07-02-2001 was passed after a notice dated 13-09-2000 proposing eviction of the petitioners from the schedule property. The petitioners submitted their explanations on 10-10-2000 and again on 11-11-2000 claiming that the property is not wakf property. Eventually, the Wakf Board through its Executive Officer passed the order dated 07-02-2001 as already adverted to, under Section 54 of the Act. The petitioners failed to implead the Wakf Board nor the Ahle Hadis Mosque or the Idgah, the owner of the schedule property, in view of the gazette notification mentioned above. Instead, the petitioners have only impleaded the Chief Executive Officer of A.P. Wakf Board and the managing committee of the Ahle Hadis Mosque. The Chief Executive Officer is merely an official of the Wakf Board and the managing committee of the mosque is but the managing committee. A mosque is a juristic entity and the Wakf Board is also body corporate entitled to sue and liable to be sued in its juristic personality, as a Wakf Board, in view of the provisions of Section 13(3) of the Act. The petitioners could not have sued nor were entitled to grant of any relief in O.A.5 of 2001 as they failed to implead the proper and necessary parties. Impleading the Chief Executive Officer does not amount to impleading the Wakf Board particularly in view of the provisions of Section 13(3) of the Act. On the aforesaid analysis, O.A.No.5 of 2001 was not maintainable for failing to implead the necessary and proper parties and no relief ought to have been granted by the Tribunal in such a fundamentally flawed application. Sri P.Satyanarayana, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would however vehemently contend that an objection to the maintainability of O.A.5 of 2001 or as to the disentitlement of any relief therein was neither raised by the Wakf Board or by the Chief Executive Officer who filed his response to O.A.5 of 2001 nor was any issue framed by the Tribunal as to this aspect and that in the circumstances no such objection could be taken in this revision. This is a contention that does not commend acceptance by this Court and is stated to be rejected in view of the specific mandate of Section 13 of the Act and in the particular context of the notice dated 07-02-2001 of the Wakf Board specifically and unambiguously claiming the schedule property to be wakf property in view of gazette notification dated 30-01-2001. Judicial notice ought to and should be taken that legal proceedings cannot be pursued against a statutory body which has an independent juristic personality enjoined by law, without such body being impleaded, being a necessary and property party. Sri Satyanarayana would alternatively plead that the petitioners be permitted to remedy the flaw in the filing of O.A. 5 of 2001. In the circumstances, the order dated 01-03-2006 impugned herein cannot be sustained as on account of the failure to implead the A.P. State Wakf Board and the Ahle Hadis Mosque. The order dated 01-03-2006 in O.A. 5 of 2001 of the A.P. Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad is accordingly quashed. The O.A.No. 5 of 2001 is remanded to the Tribunal with a liberty to the petitioners to file an appropriate application for impleading the proper and necessary parties. On such application being filed, it is open and shall be obligatory to the Tribunal to consider such application on its own merits including on the issue whether such an application is barred by limitation, laches or delay since it is the petitioners’ error whether consciously or by design which led to filing the O.A. without impleading the necessary and proper parties. Nothing in this order shall however be construed as an expression by this Court on the merits of the petitioners claim to the schedule property. This Civil Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 8th JULY 2010 TSNR