IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH (13TH) DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRP No.1504 of 2011 Between: Mohammed Jafferuddin & 3 others … Petitioners And: The State of A.P., & 8 others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.1504 of 2011 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 18.1.2011 in IA No.270 of 2009 in OS No.26 of 2007 on the file of the A.P. Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad, wherein the said application filed by the petitioners herein and others under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking temporary injunction restraining the 3rd respondent Quli Qutub Shah Urban Development Authority, Archeology and Museums-4th respondent, and 6th respondent A.P. Wakf Board from opening Deccan park in the suit property, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the records. 3. The petitioners herein filed suit against the respondents for declaration that the agreement dated 16.05.1977 executed between HEH the Nizam VIII Mir Barkat Ali Khan and the Governor of Andhra Pradesh, is illegal and also to declare handing over of the management of the suit property by HEH the Nizam VIII Mir lBarkat Ali Khan to D.4 is without jurisdiction and for redelivery of the suit property to A.P. Wakf Board, for mandatory injunction directing the 3rd defendant to remove railway tracks and toy train and other constructions made therein by the respondents 3 and 4 and for permanent injunction restraining 3rd defendant from changing the nature of the suit property and for recovery of damages and other reliefs. The plaintiffs also filed IA No.270 of 2009 for a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from opening Deccan Park in the suit property in an extent of Ac.22.00. The 3rd respondent filed counter, opposing the said application, contending that as per the Town Survey, the suit property was demarcated as Government poramboke and 3rd respondent authority decided to develop the same into a tourist spot, as the said land is situated between Qutub Shahi Tombs and Golkonda fort and that the land was enclosed by a wall with gates by the 3rd respondent in 1982 itself and 3rd respondent has developed park by spending two crore rupees out of the project cost of Ac.2.70 crores and named the same as Qutub Shahi Deccan Park. The 3rd respondent would further contend that the suit property is not the wakf property as contemplated under section 5(2) of the Wakf Act and it is only government land. It is further contended by the 3rd respondent that the plaintiffs have no semblance of right, title or interest in the suit property and the present application is field at the instance of vested interest and the land mafia groups. By impugned order, the Wakf Tribunal dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed. 4. A perusal of the plaint does not disclose the nature of rights if any, the plaintiffs are having over the suit land, except making a bald averment that the plaintiffs are the persons interested in the wakf and are filing the suit in the representative capacity, having common interest to safeguard the suit property. The plaint does not disclose that the plaintiffs have got any individual right, title or interest in the suit property. In para 34 of the plaint, while stating that the court fee of Rs.15/- is sufficient as per G.O.Ms.No.1313 dated 24.09.1969, the plaintiffs have averred that they do not have any personal interest in the suit property. Though, it is stated that the suit is filed by the plaintiffs in a representative capacity, admittedly, no permission was obtained from the court as per Order 1 Rule 8 CPC nor is the procedure contemplated therein followed before the plaintiffs can seek to file suit in a representative capacity. 5. Be that as it may, before seeking a temporary injunction, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, the plaintiffs have to necessarily establish that there is prima-facie case and balance of convenience in their favour and they would suffer irreparable loss, if the injunction is not granted. The main relief sought for by the plaintiffs is declaration that the agreement dated 16.05.1977 between HEH the Nizam VIII Mir Barkat Ali Khan and Governor of Andhra Pradesh is illegal and also mandatory injunction that the 4th defendant-Department of Archeology and Museums shall redeliver custody and management of the property to the Wakf Board, the plaintiffs have prayed for several other reliefs. 6. According to the plaintiffs, 3rd defendant is not entitled to develop the suit land of 22 acres into a park as the said land constitutes wakf property. The Wakf Board is not claiming the property to be the wakf property. The plaintiffs have not placed any material to show that the suit property was notified as a wakf property. According to the respondents 3 and 4, the suit land is government land and it was handed over to 3rd respondent for the purpose of development in 1982 itself and the suit land was enclosed by a wall with gates and the same is situated in between the historical monuments of Qutub Shahi Tombs and Goldkonda Fort, it was proposed to be developed into a park of tourist importance and already Rs.2 crores was spent out of project cost of Ac.2.70 crores. 7. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, developmental activity undertaken at considerable cost in the government land were brought to a grinding halt at the instance of the petitioners, who are non entities having no right, title or interest or any semblance of claim over the suit land. It is stated that the taken up writ petition i.e., WP No.14870 of 1999 based on a newspaper report regarding the same dispute came to be dismissed by the Division bench of this Court on 07.07.2004 in view of the affidavit filed by the Administrator of 3rd respondent authority, wherein it was stated inter-alia that there was no encroachment of any property and entire property is the government land and the authority is also instrumentality of the State and the entire land is enclosed by a compound wall. As rightly held by the learned Presiding Officer of the Wakf Tribunal, the petitioners have failed to establish any prima-facie case or balance of convenience in their favour. It cannot also be said that the petitioners would suffer any irreparable loss, if the injunction is refused because the petitioners have no semblance of right, title or interest in the suit land. Even other wise, 3rd respondent-authority is only trying to make actual improvements over the suit land by developing the same into a park of tourist importance and it cannot therefore be said that the suit land is being subjected to any acts of waste or damage. 8. In the circumstances, as the petitioners have failed to establish any prima-facie case in their favour, which is sine quo non for grant of temporary injunction, nor any of the other ingredients required to be established under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, the impugned order, dismissing their application, does not call for any interference by this court. 9. In the result, the civil Revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 13.09.2011 bss