IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURT DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.2703 OF 2002 Between: A.Ramaniah. … Petitioner And The Chairman, State Wakf Board, Reptd., by its Secretary, Block-M4, II-Floor, Manoranjan Complex, M.J. Road, Hyderabad and another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Smt.Mahveen Fatima. Counsel for the respondents: --- This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside order dated 27-2-2001 passed in Appeal No.7 of 2000 by respondent No.2, whereby it has conﬁrmed order dated 29- 6-2000 passed by respondent No.1. The petitioner claims to be a devotee and disciple of Hazrath Syed Aswad Ali Shah @ THA- THA; that the said Hazrath Syed Aswad Ali Shah died on 12-5-1994 and was buried in Syed Ahmed Baba Dargah; that a Mazar (Tomb) was constructed for which religious rites are being performed; that he approached respondent No.1 for registration of the said Tomb as a Wakf and to recognize him as a Mutawalli, but, Respondent No.2 rejected the said application holding that it is a part and parcel of the notiﬁed Wakf Institution-Bare Shaheed Dargah and registration of another Dargah of another saint within the same place cannot be considered for registration. The said order passed on 29-6-2000 by respondent No.2 was questioned in appeal before respondent No.1. The said Appeal having been dismissed by judgment dated 27-2-2001, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. At the hearing, though Smt.Mahveen Fatima, made strenuous eﬀorts to convince this Court that the orders passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 suﬀer from errors of law, on a careful perusal of the said orders, I am not inclined to accept her contention. As regards the right of the petitioner to claim registration of the Tomb as Wakf, he is required to satisfy the provisions of Section 36(2) of the Wakf Act, 1995 (for short “the Act”), which envisages that an application for registration shall be made by the Mutawalli or by the Wakf or his descendants or a beneﬁciary of the Wakf, or any Muslim belonging to the sect to which the Wakf belongs. The petitioner failed to make out that he falls in any one of these categories, in order to claim a right to seek registration of the Tomb as a Wakf. As regards the second ground on which the petitioner’s application was rejected, viz., that no second Wakf can be registered in the same premises, the petitioner has not denied the fact that in the same premises there already exists a Dargah, by name, Bare Shaheed Dargah at Dargahmitta in Nellore, which is a notiﬁed institution. Respondent No.2, therefore, rightly refused to register another Wakf in the same premises. I do not, therefore, ﬁnd any error of law or jurisdiction in the orders passed by respondents 1 and 2 warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. ------------------------- ----------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date: 24-9-2008 MNR