HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITON No.11114 OF 2005 AND CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2774 OF 2006 COMMON ORDER: WRIT PETITON No.11114 OF 2005:- This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order dated 16-02- 2005 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, through which the Managing Committee for the Wakf by name Majid-e-Khadria, Syed Ali Guda, Hyderabad was constituted for a term of two years. While admitting writ petition on 29-06-2005, this Court suspended the said order. Respondents have filed counter affidavit and the Managing Committee was also made a party. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Several contentions are urged. This Court does not feel it necessary to refer to the same. The reason is that the committee was appointed through the impugned order for a period of two years and that period has already elapsed. 4. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2774 OF 2006: 5. The 1st respondent was appointed as Mutawalli to a Wakf by name Majid-e-Khadria, Syed Ali Guda, Hyderabad. 2nd respondent is A.P. Wakf Board. Both of them filed O.S. No.23 of 2004 before the A.P. Wakf Tribunal against the petitioners herein for the relief of perpetual injunction. According to them, petitioners started interfering with the properties of the Wakf without any basis. 6. The 1st petitioner filed the written statement opposing the suit. It was pleaded that 1st petitioner is the son of the former Mutawalli of the Wakf and he sold away part of the land owned by the Wakf in favour of the third parties. It is also stated that the committee was constituted for the welfare of the Wakf and since large number of complaints were received against the 1st respondent, it became necessary for the petitioners to look after the management. Through its judgment dated 19-04-2006, the trial court decreed the suit. Hence, this revision petition under Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act. 7. Heard the leaned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. 8. The suit was filed for the relief of an injunction simplicitor. None of the parties claimed ownership over the Wakf properties. It was only as regards administration of the Wakf. On behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were filed. On behalf of the petitioners, DWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-20 were filed. The suit was ultimately decreed. 9. The principal contention advanced by the petitioners is that appointment of the 1st respondent was only temporary in nature and even that is not in accordance with law. Their further contention is that the 2nd respondent itself constituted a committee for the welfare of the Wakf and that petitioners are members thereof. 10. By the time the suit was filed, the petitioners were not appointed as members of the Committee. It was only in the year 2005 that the committee was constituted vide proceedings dated 16-02- 2005. On his part, the 1st respondent filed Writ petition No.11114 of 2005 challenging that order and this Court suspended the same. The Writ Petition is dismissed today itself by this common order, since the period for which the committee was constituted has elapsed. Even assuming that petitioners derived any right on account of their being members of the Committee, the fact remains that the term of the Committee has already expired. Viewed from any angle, the decree passed by the trial Court cannot be found fault with. 10. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J August 23, 2010. KTL