THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.3261 OF 2001 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not deciding the grant of Towliath to the petitioners and recognizing them as Muthawalis of the Masjid, Inside Abadi, Idgah, Chilla Mahaboob Subhani, Ashurkhana, and the grave yard situated at Ghanpur Village of Warangal District, based on the succession certificate granted by the Revenue Divisional Officer in File No. R.Dis.B/5973/91, dated 14.06.1995, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, to direct the respondent to consider the claim of the petitioners for grant of Towliath and to recognize them as the Mutawallis of the said institution. 2. The case of the petitioners is that father of petitioner No.2 was Mutawali of the said mosque and the graveyard and on 01.2.1990, the same were notified as Wakf properties in the Gazettee. The erstwhile Government of Hyderabad has granted land as Inam for rendering services to the aforesaid Wakf Institutions. Late father of petitioner No.2 and petitioner No.1, uncle of Petitioner No.2, were the Mutawalis. After the death of father of petitioner No.2 on 27.03.1982, petitioner No.2 took over the management and had been discharging the duties attached to the office. He made an application to the respondent for grant of Towliath with the consent of his uncle. Then the respondent directed him to obtain a Succession Certificate from the Atiyat Court in respect of the Inam land for recognizing him as Mutawali. Then he obtained Succession Certificate from the competent authority and thereafter, when he filed the same, the respondent took objection and directed him to file an attested copy of the Munthakhab and Succession Certificate and he complied immediately. It is further submitted that a Rival Muslim group belonging to the Telugu Desam Party made an attempt to interfere with their day to day affairs and management of the said Wakf institutions, due to which petitioner No.2 filed O.S.No.1520 of 2000 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal and obtained interim injunction on 01.11.2000 in I.A.No.1381 of 2000. In order to circumvent the injunction order, the rival group instigated the respondent, who without any notice or opportunity issued proceedings No.448/Prot/WGL/2000/DM, dated 10.11.2000, under which the institution was sought to be taken under the direct management of the Wakf Board. Aggrieved by this, petitioners filed W.P.No.25560 of 2000 before this Court, and this Court by order, dated 22.12.2000, in W.P.MP.No.32599 of 2000, suspended the operation of the said proceedings. Till now, the respondent has not recognized petitioner No.2 as Mutawali. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 3. Respondent filed counter affidavit stating that the rival group belonging to ruling Telugu Desam Party making an attempt to interfere with the day to day affairs and management of the said Wakf institutions and that petitioner No.2 filed O.S.No.1520 of 2000 and obtained injunction, are all facts to be proved by petitioner No.2 herein. It is absolutely false to say that in order to circumvent the injunction order, the rival group instigated this respondent and without any notice or opportunity to petitioner No.2, it got issued the proceedings, under which the institution was sought to be taken under the direct management of the Wakf board. It is true that the petitioners have filed W.P.No.25560 of 2000 on the file of this Court and this Court suspended the proceedings referred to above. It is further submitted that the respondent did not choose to decide the Towliath. It is submitted that the process was actually initiated, but due to delay committed by petitioner No.2 in submitting the requisite particulars; due to non-payment of Wakf fund arrears and non-cooperative attitude of petitioner No.2, further course of action is held up. Thus, petitioner No.2 herein without cooperating with the respondent approached this Court in haste. Petitioner No.2 was already directed vide memo dated 02.09.2001 also, to submit Succession Certificate in original within the time specified therein, otherwise his petition will be rejected. Despite the clear instruction previously issued to submit the original Succession Certificate, petitioner No.2 has again submitted the attested copy only. Hence, prays to dismiss the Writ Petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in view of the fact that by virtue of the succession, petitioner No.2 has become a Mutawali and obtained a Succession Certificate issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the respondent has to recognize him as Mutawali and hence, he prays to allow the Writ Petition. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the Atiyat Court has no power to issue a Succession Certificate; that petitioner No.2 has not filed any Wakf deed or Mutawali deed, whereunder he can get hereditary rights and hence, he prays to dismiss the Writ Petition. 6. The fact that the father of petitioner No.2 was a Mutawali till his death on 27.03.1982 is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that as per the Gazette Notification, father of petitioner No.2 and petitioner No.1, who is no other than uncle of petitioner No.2, were the Mutawalis and they were discharging the duties as Mutawalis for the subject institution. It is also not in dispute that father of petitioner No.2 died on 27.03.1982. It is also not in dispute that petitioner No.2 approached the respondent for grant of Towliath with the consent of his uncle. The respondent issued proceedings dated 10.05.1985, directing him to obtain Succession Certificate in respect of the Inam land for recognizing him as Mutawali. Accordingly, he obtained the Succession Certificate, which was granted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, after conducting due enquiry. But, still he has not been recognized. Though the leaned counsel for the respondent placed strong reliance on a decision of this Court in Syed Jamil Ahmed (Died) per L.Rs. v. Meer Ahmed Ali Khan (Died) per L.Rs.[1], that Mutawaliship is not hereditary and the legal heir of the Mutawali cannot be termed as Mutawali, the decision has no application to the present facts of the case. That is only applicable when the Mutawali is appointed by Wakf Board. Petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2 were not shown to be appointed by Wakf Board as Mutawalis. 7. The Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Atiyat Enquiries Act, 1952, (for short, "the Act") defines what is Atiyat Grant means, which reads as follows: "(i) in the case of jagirs abolished under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) (Abolition of Jagirs) Regulation, 1358 F, the commutation sums payable in respect thereof under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Jagirs (Commutation) Regulation, 1359 F.; (ii) inams to which the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1954, is not applicable. (iii) in the case of inams abolished under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolitions of Inams Act, 1954, the compensation payable under this Act; (iv) cash grants to which the Hyderabad Abolition of Cash Grants Act, 1952 (XXXIII of 1952) is not applicable; (v) cash grants temporarily continued under the Hyderabad Abolition of Cash Grants Act, 1952 (XXXIII of 1952); (vi) in the case of cash grants abolished under the Hyderabad Abolition of Cash Grants Act, 1952 (XXXIII of 1952), subject to payment of compensation, the compensation payable in respect thereof;" Similarly, "Muntakhabs and Vasiqas" means documents issued by competent authorities as a result of inam or succession enquiries held under the Dastoor-ul-Amal Inams or other Government orders on the subject and issued by way of continuance or confirmation of Atiyat grants. 8. The Atiyat Court can make an enquiry under Section 3-A of the Act with regard to the Atiyat Grants. Under Section 3-A (2) of the Act, in the case of Atiyat grants specified in sub-clauses (ii) to (vi) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 2, all Atiyat enquiries, enquiries as to claims to succession to, or any right, or interest therein and matters ancillary thereto shall be held in Atiyat Courts in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Therefore, prima facie petitioner No.2 has established that he is entitled to succeed to the office of his father, when an enquiry was conducted by the Atiyat Court. Whether he has to be recognized as a Mutawali or not, the respondent is the competent person to decide the same. Hence, the respondent is directed to consider his application for grant of Towliath, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and pass appropriate orders in accordance with Wakf Act and also the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Atiyat Enquiries Act, 1952, after giving reasonable opportunity to petitioner No.2 for hearing. 9. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J December 02, 2010 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.3261 of 2001 BETWEEN: Mohd. Sarwar Khan and another ... PETITIONERS AND A.P. State Wakf Board ...RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.3261 OF 2001 December 02, 2010 [1] 2002 (5) ALT 174