IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20060 of 2010 Between: Syed Hamed Hussain Shuttari ..... Petitioner AND B. Chittibabu & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri S. Sriramachandra Murthy Counsel for respondents 1&2: Sri Bajrang Singh Thakur Counsel for respondent No.4: Sri M.A.K. Mukheed The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20060 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to direct respondent Nos.1 to 5 to clear the pathway meant for the devotees of Dargah Hazrath Shah Abban Shuttari and Dargah Hazrath Saheb Peeran Shuttari situated at Dabeerpura, Purani Haveli, Hyderabad by removing the obstructions. I have heard Sri S. Sreeramachandra Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Bajrang Singh Thakur for respondent Nos.1 and 2. There is a serious dispute between the petitioner on the one side and respondent Nos.1 to 4 on the other regarding the nature of the abovementioned property. While it is the case of the petitioner that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have illegally encroached the pathway meant for the devotees to approach the abovementioned two Dargahs, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have vehemently denied this plea and maintained that they are the lawful owners of the said property and that the Wakf has nothing to do with the same. Though respondent No.4 in its counter affidavit stated that the relief claimed by the petitioner may be granted in the interest of the public and Wakf, learned counsel for the petitioner seriously denied the same and submitted that the Wakf board has no right or authority over the property belonging to his client and that as a fact respondent No.4 has filed O.S.No.23 of 2008 in the Wakf Tribunal in relation to the same property, which is in dispute in this writ petition and that therefore it is naturally expected of respondent No.4 to concede to the claim made by the petitioner. In my opinion, the petitioner ought to have approached the Wakf Tribunal under Section 6 of the Wakf Act, 1995 (for short, “the Act”), whereunder he is entitled to raise the dispute, which can be resolved by the latter. Exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is not possible for this Court to decide the disputed questions of title. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to workout his remedies under the provisions of the Act. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.Nos.25414 and 25415 of 2010 are also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 03.11.2010 ES