HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO C.R.P. No.80 of 2011 Order: Heard Sri T.S. Anand, learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri Abdul Muqeeth Qureshi, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Sri A.M. Qureshi, learned Standing Counsel for the A.P.State Wakf Board. This revision is at the instance of the defendants under Article 227 of the Constitution of India inter alia seeking to assail the orders of the A.P.State Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad in I.A No. 83 of 2010 in O.S. No. 15 of 2010, whereby the Tribunal allowed the application purported to have been filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C. for injunction against the petitioners herein restraining them from making further construction in the suit schedule property. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent filed the suit seeking recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property and the consequential relief of permanent injunction by restraining the petitioners herein from making further construction in the suit schedule property claiming himself to be a person interested. According to the respondent, the suit schedule property is a wakf property belonging to a mosque known as Asare Shareef situated at Kurnool Town and he alleged that the petitioners have encroached the wakf property and started making constructions. In that suit, he filed the aforementioned I.A. seeking the relief of injunction. While opposing the application, the petitioners filed counter affidavit denying the right of the Wakf Board. In the counter filed by the 2nd respondent, it is stated that the suit schedule property is the exclusive property of the petitioners having purchased the same under a registered sale deed in the year 2001 on payment of sale consideration. As such, the 2nd respondent became the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and accordingly they started making constructions. The Court below after taking into consideration their respective claims, allowed the application and granted in junction in favour of the respondent. Hence, the revision. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the Court below without conducting any enquiry as to whether the property in question is a wakf property or not and without there being any evidence on record to show that the property is a wakf property, has erroneously allowed the application filed by the respondent for injunction. Hence, he seeks indulgence of this Court. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that though he is not an official representing the Wakf Board, having regard to the fact that the property in question is a wakf property, as a person interested, he has tried to protect the property and therefore, it cannot be said that there is any illegality. Even though the Wakf Board is added as respondent No.6 in the suit, no material has been filed by the Wakf Board either before this Court or before the Court below to prove that the property in question is a wakf property. The Court below also observed in the impugned order that even though the Wakf Board is represented by a counsel, the learned counsel failed to file any material to show that the property in question is a wakf property. Be that as it may, the petitioners also have not filed any material to show that the suit schedule property belongs to them. There is no explanation forthcoming as to whether the property in question is a wakf or not even after the enforcement of the Wakf Act, 1954 to conduct survey and issue gazette notification showing the wakf properties not only within the State, but also through out the country. Therefore, it cannot be said that any wakf property could be left without conducting any such survey or enquiry and without collecting the basic data. In the instant case, since no material has been filed by either of the parties and since no enquiry or survey has been conducted to show that the property is a wakf property or not, I feel it desirable to remand the matter back to the Court below for conducting fresh enquiry into the matter. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Court below for fresh consideration. The Court below shall conduct enquiry into the matter and afford an opportunity to all the parties including the State Wakf Board before passing further orders in the matter as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. All the parties are at liberty to file necessary material in support of their respective claims. On such material being filed, the same shall be considered by the Court below. It is needless to mention that till disposal of the application, status-quo shall be maintained by all the parties. ________________ B. PRAKASH RAO,J Date: 18th February, 2011 pnb