THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.28749 of 2009 and 24171 of 2010 COMMON ORDER The petitioners are the Wakfs, functioning at different places in the State of Andhra Pradesh. They claim the benefit under the Scheme framed by the Central Government that provides for payment of remuneration to Inams. The petitioners contend that though they are entitled to get the benefit under the Scheme, the respondents are not extending it and they seek a writ of mandamus in the form of direction to the respondents. The Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board, the 4th respondent herein, filed a counter affidavit. It is stated that the Scheme is applicable only to such of the institutions that are registered with the Wakf Board and none of the petitioners got registration with the Wakf Board. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. The Central Government framed a Scheme in the year 1995, and it came into effect w.e.f 18.12.1993. The Scheme shall apply to Mosques, which are under the direct management of Wakf Board established under the Wakf law or the Mosques which are registered with the Wakf Board. Clause (3) of the Scheme reads as under: 3. The Scheme shall apply to the following categories of mosques: (a) Mosques which are under the direct management of a Board of Wakf established under the wakf law for the time being in force. (b) Mosques which are registered with a Board of Wakf established under the wakf law for the time being in force and are under that control/management of Muttawalis of various Wakfs. Provided that the scheme shall not apply to the following categories of mosques: (i) Mosques under the control or management of the government except as provided in para 7. (ii) Mosques which are not registered with the wakf Board and are managed by local inhabitants. (iii) Mosques which are not managed either by Muttawalis or the Muslims of the locality. (iv) Mosques not managed by members of Islamic faith. Admittedly, the petitioners are not under the direct management of the Wakf Board. They do not come under sub- clause (b) of Clause 3 of the Scheme since they are not registered with the Wakf Board as it is stated that the applications submitted by them for registration are pending. Unless the formality of registration is completed, the petitioners cannot claim the benefit under the Scheme. Even now, the petitioners can put their efforts in their direction. As and when the petitioners are registered with the Wakf Board, it is needless to mention that they shall be entitled to extend the benefits under the Scheme. Hence, both the Writ Petitions are disposed of, directing that; (a) the 4th respondent shall process the applications, if any, filed by the petitioners for registration under Section 36 of the Wakf Act (for short ‘the Act’). In case, the applications are defective on any aspect, it shall be pointed out within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; (b) as and when such petitioners are registered with the 4th respondent under Section 36 of the Act, they shall be entitled to the benefit under the Scheme. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J Date: 08.12.2010 sj