IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 1500 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 24/09/2008 in WP NO : 2703 OF 2002 on the file of the High Court.) Between: A.Ramanaiah, S/o. Venkaiah, R/o. 25-1-714 L.W.Puram, 1st Lane, Podalakur Road, Nellore - 524 003. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The State Wakf Board, Rep. by Chief Executive Officer, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Inspector Auditor Wakfs, Collectorate, Nellore-524 001 .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MR.P.VINOD KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2: MR.S.M.SUBHANI (SC FOR AP WAKF BOARD) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 1500 of 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge made in Writ Petition No. 2703 of 2002, dated 14.9.2008. The appellant is the writ petitioner, who claims to be the devotee and disciple of Hazrath Syed Aswad Ali Shah, who died on 12.5.1994 and subsequent to his death, he was buried in Syed Ahmed Baba Dargah and a Tomb was constructed in the said place, for which religious rites were being performed. Thereafter, the appellant seems to have approached the 1st respondent for registration of the Tomb as Wakf property and to recognize him as a Mutawalli. The said application was rejected. Aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent, which was also dismissed by the order impugned in the writ petition dated 27.2.2001. Challenging the said order, the appellant filed the aforementioned writ petition. The learned single Judge, by the impugned order, dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the appellant who is seeking registration of the Tomb as Wakf property was required to satisfy the provisions as contained in Section 36(2) of the Wakf Act, 1995 (for short ‘the Act’), according to which, 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 and since the appellant did not fall in any one of the categories mentioned in Section 36(2) of the Act, he was not entitled to claim registration of the Tomb as Wakf. In so far as the registration of the tomb as wakf is concerned, as the appellant did not deny the fact that already another Dargah exist in the same premises, by name, Bare Shaheed Dargah at Dargahmitta in Nellore, which is also a notified wakf, a second wakf cannot be created in the same premises, contrary to the provisions of the Act. Keeping in view the fact that the appellant did not fall in any of the categories mentioned in Section 36(2) of the Act and also the fact that there is already another Dargah existing in the same premises, the learned single Judge rightly refused to interfere with the order of the 2nd respondent in refusing to register the Tomb as wakf. In the circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the well considered order of the learned single Judge. The writ appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________ T.MEENA KUMARI,J Date: 15th June, 2009 _________________ SANJAY KUMAR,J pnb