THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.113 of 2005 DATED: 11.08.2009 BETWEEN: Syed Taj Mohammed Qadri and another .. Petitioners And Syed Peer Pasha Quadri and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.113 of 2005 This civil revision petition is filed by the respondents 3 and 4 in O.A.No.7 of 2002 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad, aggrieved by the order dated 13.09.2004 passed by the Tribunal in the said original application. 2. The first respondent herein and the applicant in the said O.A. has filed O.A. before the Wakf Tribunal seeking to set aside the order dated 04.0.1.2002 in F.No.B3/1/KNL/97 and to direct the Wakf Board to consider the claim of the first respondent to appoint him as one of the joint mutawallies of Dargah Hazrath Syed Shah Ishaq Sanaullah. 3. The first respondent based his right to the office of joint mutawalli on the rule of succession which is mentioned in the Survey Commissioner's Report as hereditary by custom. According to him, he is one of the sons of mutawalli whose name is found in the survey commissioner's report. 4. On the other hand, it was contended by the Wakf Board as well as the other respondents before the Tribunal that soon after the death of his father, the first respondent herein who is the applicant before the Tribunal did not approach the Board for sanction of Towliath and he has been residing in Hyderabad, that he or his father had never taken the affairs of the institution and also that the applicant is not suitable person to be appointed as mutawalli, and the learned Tribunal allowed the original application directing the board to appoint the applicant as one of the joint mutawallies. 5. The legality and correctness of the order passed by the Tribunal is questioned in this revision. 5. The brief facts relevant for consi6eration in this revision as per the note submitted at the time of hearing, may be stated as follows: “There were five Mutawallies for the Dargah Syed Shah Ishaq Sanaulla Quadri Alias Miah Saheb Quadri, Roza Dargah situated at Kurnool and all the five Mutawallies died. The genealogy is as follows: Syed Taj Mohd Quadri @ Anwar Basha (p1) Syed Jamal Ullah Quadri @ Dada Basha (P2) Syed Gulab Basha Quadri ed osa ya Syed Darwesh Peer (died on 10.4.1979) Syed Hussaini Miya Syed Mohiuddin Basha (Died on 1964) Syed Idrus Basha (died in the year 1963 ed oom er 3) Syed Miya Sab Syed Khaja Peer Syed Chandu Peer Syed Mohd Peer Syed Peer Pasha Quadri (R1) Syed Habeeb Pasha Quadri Syed Shah Khaleelullah Quadri (died on 25.7.91) The office of mutawalli is hereditary by custom. Syed Indrus Basha Quadri died leaving his only son Syed Khaleelullah Quadri and was appointed as sole mutawalli by the Wakf Board in August, 1978 and the same was published in the gazette, dated 31.08.1978. Though the father of respondent were alive they did not question his appointment and he died in the year 1991. Applications were filed for appointments of Mutawallies. The Wakf Board appointed enquiry officer who submitted the report recommending the appointment of Syed Taj Mohd Quadri @ Anwar Basha, petitioner No.1 and Syed Jamalullah Quadri @ Dada Basha, petitioner No.2 and Syed Peer Basha Quadri, respondent No.1 and his brother Habeeb Basha Quadri form the branch of Syed Indrus Basha Quadriand Syed Mohiuddin Quadri. The Wakf Board appointed Syed Jamalullah Quadri as the sole Mutawalli contrary to the recommendation made by the enquiry officer by order dated 04.01.2002. Syed Tajuddin Quadri @ Anwar Basha filed O.A.No.1 of 2002 on the file of the A.P. State Wakf Tribunal questioning the appointment of younger brother Syed. Jamlullah Quadri as the Mutawalli under Section 63 of the Act. Syed Peer Basha Quadri, the respondent filed O.A.No.7 of 2002 questioning the orders, dated 04.01.2002 appointing Syed Jamalullah Quadri @Dada Basha as the sole mutawalli ignoring his claim contrary to the recommendation of the enquiry officer. Syed Jamalullah Basha Quadri and Syed Taj Mohd Quadri compromised the matterand O.A.No.1 of 2002 was withdrawn on 14.02.2002. They jointly submitted application for appointment of mutawallies. The Wakf Board while cancelling the order, dated 04.01.2002 passed under Section 63 passed another resolution on 13.05.2002 appointing both the brothers as mutawalli and joint mutawalli and the orders were passed on 30.05.2002, the same was published in the gazette on 13.06.2002 under Section 42 of the Act. Syed Peer Basha Quadri the respondent in CRP filed O.A.No. 18 of 2002 questioning the proceedings of the Wakf Board dated 30.05.2002 and the said O.A. Was not pressed got dismissed on 13.09.2004, but proceeded with O.A.No.7 of 2002 which has in fact becomes infructuous, according to the revision petitioners.” 7. I have perused the order passed by the learned Tribunal. As per Section 83(5) of the Wakf Act, the Tribunal shall be deemed to be a civil Court and shall have the same powers as may be exercised by a civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure while trying a suit, or executing a decree or order. However, Clause (6) empowers the Tribunal to follow sch procedure as may be prescribed notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure. 8. Thus, the Tribunal while deciding the dispute though need not strictly adhere to the procedure laid down in Code of Civil Procedure and the rules of evidence in the Evidence Act, the Tribunal has to follow the principles of natural justice and for that matter, it has to afford an opportunity to both parties to adduce evidence and has to pass a reasoned order after hearing both parties. 9. But, in the instant case, the Tribunal has not considered the contentions urged before it viz. that the father of the first respondent was removed during his life time on the ground that he sold away the valuable wakf property prior to 1964 and that the first respondent waived his right since he did not take any objection of appointing of Syed Shah Jamalullah Qadri, that the order which was challenged before the learned Tribunal is an infructuous order which was raised by the revision petitioner. 10. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that mentioning only the contentions urged by the counsel appearing on either side, the learned Tribunal passed the order allowing the O.A. with a direction to the board to appoint the applicant as one of the joint mutawallies. 11. Apparently, the impugned order was passed without referring to the material evidence and without considering the contentious points raised by both parties in support of their versions. Since the order was passed without even touching the point required for determination of the dispute between the parties and without assigning any reasons for passing the impugned order, it cannot be sustained in law. The learned Tribunal totally ignored the principles of natural justice while exercising it's jurisdiction under Section 83 of the Wakf Act. 12. The order passed by the Tribunal is therefore, set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to consider the matter afresh and pass an appropriate reasoned order by affording opportunity of hearing to both parties. The Tribunal shall dispose of the O.A. within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the C.R.P. is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Date:11.08.2009. R. KANTHA RAO, J CCM