IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 371 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 19/12/2008 in WP NO : 26338 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between : Mohammed Mudassir, S/o Abdul Khayum, Residing at House no.11-2-173, Nampalli, Hyderabad. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board, represented by its Chief Executive Officer, Haj House Complex, Nampalli, Hyderabad. 3 Mir Ahmed Ali, S/o late Dawood Ali, Residing at D.No.18-12-419/569, Hafiz Babanagar, Chandrayanagutta, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR. SYED SHAREEF AHMED Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR REVENUE The Division Bench of this Court made the following : (Judgment follows 2nd page) THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI A N D THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 371 of 2009 JUDGMENT : (Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ appeal is filed against the order dated 19-12-2008 in WP.No.26338 of 2007 passed by the learned single Judge, whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that simultaneously a suit and writ petition would lie with respect to the same property and the learned single Judge observed that there is a dispute whether petitioner’s father occupied Government poramboke land or Wakf property and the same has to be decided with reference to the muntakab No.998 dated 24-2-1953 as amended by the impugned notification and the learned single Judge further observed that when the impugned notification was issued on 29-12-1988, petitioner chose to file a writ petition challenging the same after lapse of twenty years. 2. The main writ petition was filed seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the amendment issued and published in the Gazette bearing No.51, dated 29-12-1988 in respect of the premises bearing No.5-7- 420/2, admeasuring about 100 sq.yards situated near Masjid Tek, Nampalli, Hyderabad, treating it was the wakf property as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the earlier notification and violative of principles of natural justice. 3. The main contention urged before the learned single Judge was that the appellant herein being the petitioner is aggrieved by the Gazette Publication made by the Government on 29-12-1988, declaring the disputed subject property as wakf property on the ground that if the amendment is issued with reference to the muntakab No.998 which was notified in the A.P.Gazette notification dated 29-12-1988 wherein the open land in an extent of 998.66 sq.mts is the wakf property. 4. The case of the appellant is that his father occupied Government poramboke land in 1960 and was running a firewood depot, which was later converted to Kirana stores and then into Hotel. It is also further stated that the property in his occupation is nothing to do with graveyard with an extent of 66.08 sq.yards, which is a wakf property. In 1965, survey was conducted as per A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923. In the said survey, it was noticed that the land in occupation of various persons is a slum area. Thereafter, the land was taken over under A.P. Slum Improvement (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1956 (Slum Improvement Act). 5. Even though it was averred that the certificate given to his father in 1979, the disputed property is notified as subject wakf on 30- 8-1984 and further amendment is made to the Muntakab by issuing notification on 29-12-1988. The appellant is therefore, aggrieved and filed the writ petition. It is also further stated that OS.No.126 of 2006 was filed before the State Wakf Tribunal for eviction and the said suit is still pending. Under the above circumstances, the learned single Judge has held that as the suit is already pending before the Wakf Tribunal and there is a dispute between the appellant and wakf property and further there is a dispute whether the appellant’s father occupied Government poramboke land or wakf property. In view of the disputed questions of facts, we are of the opinion that the order dated 19- 12-2008 passed by the learned single Judge in WP.No. 26338 of 2007 needs no interference and is perfectly legal and as per the provisions of section 18 (3) A.P. Wakf Act, as the matter relates to the disputed property of the wakf . If the appellant is aggrieved, he can approach the Wakf Tribunal. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the observation of the learned single Judge mandates no interference of this court and the writ appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent is liable to be dismissed and accordingly the writ appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR 02-04-2009 I s L