IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6076 of 2009 BETWEEN Mahmood Khan and another. ... PETITIONERS AND A.P. State Wakf Board, Nampally and another. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. S. CHANDRA SEKHAR Counsel for the Respondents: MR. NAZEER KHAN for R2 The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioners/Plaintiffs in O.S.No.27 of 2003 before the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad are aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 31.10.2009 dismissing the suit. 2. The plaint in the aforesaid suit is filed in the material papers, which shows that the plaintiffs claimed ownership and possession to the extent of Sy.No.239 admeasuring Ac.9.20 guntas situated at Tosham village, Gudi Hatnur Mandal, Adilabad District. The said suit was resisted by the respondents 1 and 2 on the ground that the subject matter of the suit schedule property is a notified wakf and reliance was placed upon the Gazette notification dated 30.03.1989 marked as Ex.B1. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner demonstrated that the property, which is mentioned in the said Gazette notification and the plaint schedule property are ex facie different but the tribunal below has not considered the said aspect nor it had considered the cross-examination of D.W.1, which is also produced in the material papers. Learned counsel also placed reliance upon the pahanies produced by the petitioner before the Court below marked as Exs.A2 to A28 apart from the other documents and most important being Ex.A32, copy of Sethwar. 4. It is to be noted that the first respondent though served, there is no appearance on its behalf and I am informed that even before the tribunal below the situation was similar. 5. On consideration of the material, as above, and contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the second respondent, it is evident that the tribunal below has merely referred to the number of documents without discussing any of them. The tribunal below also has noticed the Gazette notification – Ex.B1 together with Survey Commissioner’s report – Ex.B2 but has neither discussed nor examined the said documents. A cursory look at the Gazette notifications shows that as against column 3 it is recorded as Mosque with fallow land inside abadi and boundaries of the said property are also indicated in column 5. The plaint schedule land covers an extent of Ac.9.29 guntas in Sy.No.239 and prima facie, the extent and the boundaries do not tally with the property referred to in the gazette notification. However, the tribunal below has not examined these matters at all whereas in a suit for declaration, which the tribunal below was to try, it was required to have discussed the oral and documentary evidence produced by both sides and ought to have analyzed the evidence and reached conclusions flowing therefrom in accordance with law. The impugned order, however, is wholly unsustainable as it does not show any consideration on any evidence on record and merely on ipsi dixiti the suit of the petitioner was dismissed. 6. The impugned order, therefore, being wholly unsustainable is set aside and the suit O.S.No.27 of 2003 is restored to the file of the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad for fresh disposal in accordance with law. In a matter of this nature, the Wakf Tribunal shall give opportunity to the parties to lead such further evidence, if any, if they feel appropriate and make such request and decide the suit afresh uninfluenced by any of the observations made herein. The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J October 21, 2011 DSK