IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST (31ST) DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRP No.4576 of 2004 Between: Mohammed Abdul Hameed @ Khursheed … Petitioner And: Mohd. Zulfikhar Ahmed & another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRP No.4576 of 2004 ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the award dated 09.07.2004 in OS No.70 of 2003 on the file of the A.P. Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad, wherein the said suit filed by the first respondent herein/ plaintiff, was decreed in part. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent. Perused the record. 3. The first respondent herein filed suit for declaration that the appointment of petitioner herein-first defendant as muthawalli is illegal and also to restrain the defendants from making any constructions in the schedule property, which is graveyard. 4. The petitioner herein filed written statement and contested the suit. The Tribunal framed the following issues for trial. 1. Whether the appointment of muthawalli of defendant No.1 is illegal? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction? 3. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the plaintiff, PW.1 was examined and Exs.A.1 and A.2 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, DW.1 was examined, but no documents were marked. 6. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal on issue No.1 without granting any declaration prayed for, however directed the 2nd defendant-Wakf Board to look into the matter and takes steps according to law and also directed the 2nd defendant to preserve the burial ground. On issue No.2, the Tribunal granted injunction restraining both parties from making any constructions in the burial ground. 7. Several allegations are made against the petitioner-first defendant, who was appointed as muthawalli. The plaintiff sought declaration that the appointment of first defendant as muthawalli is illegal. No such declaration is granted by the Tribunal. But the Tribunal gave a direction to the Wakf Board to look into the allegations made against the petitioner-first defendant and conduct necessary enquiry. In fact Section 54 of the Wakf Act also empowers the Chief Executive Officer of the Wakf Board to enquire into the allegations and cause removal of the same after following the procedure prescribed therein. The said direction given by the Tribunal to the Wakf Board is therefore in accordance with the provisions of the Wakf Act. The objection raised by the petitioner-first defendant in that regard is also equally unsustainable. As the subject property is graveyard and there is every necessity to safeguard and preserve the same in public interest, the Tribunal has rightly restrained both the parties from making any constructions thereon. The said direction given by the Tribunal in order to protect and preserve the graveyard cannot also be taken exception to. In the circumstances, it is held that there are absolutely no merits in the revision. 8. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 31.01.2011 bss