IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 480 of 2009 Between: Syed Burhanullah Hussaini S/o. Late Syed Khaleelullah Hussaini R/o. 21-4-1079, Petlaburj, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Represented by its Special Officer Hyderabad. 2 The City Planner, Circle No.5 Office of the City Planner Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad. 3 Kanhaiyalal Lohia S/o. Bodulal Lohia R/o. 18-4-82, Shamsheergunj, Hyderabad. 4 Praveen Kumar Agarwal S/o. Late Sagormal R/o. 21-7-320, Shakkarkota, Charkaman, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, direction or order declaring the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in considering the application of the respondents 3 and 4 for construction permission in respect of Darga property of Darga Burhanullah Shah Saheb Institution viz. property bearing No.1018 to 1020 and 1021 to 1026 now bearing Municipal No.21-4-1046 to 1054 admeasuring 1037.77 square yards situated at Petlaburj, Hyderabad, surrounded by North: Road; South: Dargah Shareef & Graveyard; East: Graveyard and Old Police Station, and West: Neighbour's property No. 21-4-1039/1 to 1040, till the disposal of O.S. No.34 of 2008 on the file of the A.P. Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad, filed by the petitioner, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice, and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 not to grant construction permission over the properties referred above, until disposal of O.S.No.34 of 2008 on the file of the A.P. Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad, filed by the petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. E.MADAN MOHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondents : R.RADHA KRISHNA REDDY(SC FOR GHMC,SNCZONE) The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.480 of 2009 ORDER : The petitioner herein claims to be the Muthawali of Wakf known as Darga Burhanullah Shah Saheb, comprising of Darga Shareef, Grave Yard and Khankhah admeasuring 1939 sq. yards, bearing No.1036 & 1048, (now bearing Municipal No.21-4-1079) situated at Petlaburj, Hyderabad. It is stated that the said property is registered as wakf and after the formation of the A.P. State Wakf Board, a Gazette Notification dated 9.2.1989 was issued notifying the above said property as the wakf property. It is alleged that one Mr. Sardhar Khan, who was a lessee in respect of a small extent of the above said property in collusion with the respondents 3 and 4 herein, created interest in favour of respondents 3 and 4 in respect of the property in question. Pursuant thereto, the respondents 3 and 4 attempted to raise constructions by further encroaching the land to the extent of 1037.77 sq. yards. In the circumstances, the petitioner filed O.S.No.34 of 2008 on the file of the A.P. State Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad, against the respondents 3 and 4 for recovery of the said property. The petitioner also made a representation to the A.P. State Wakf Board about the unauthorized constructions being made by the respondents 3 and 4 and pursuant thereto the A.P. State Wakf Board by letter dated 26.6.2007 requested the 1st respondent Municipal Corporation not to accord any construction permission to the respondents 3 and 4 over the land in question since the same is a registered wakf land. In spite of the same, the respondents 3 and 4 were proceeding with the construction work. In the circumstances, the petitioner filed I.A.No.123 of 2008 in O.S.No.34 of 2008 pending on the file of the A.P. State Wakf Tribunal and by order dated 11.4.2008 the respondents 3 and 4 herein were restrained from raising constructions and changing the nature of the suit schedule properties It is alleged that in spite of the fact that the order of injunction dated 11.4.2008 is subsisting, the respondents 3 and 4 made application for construction permission from the Municipal Corporation on the basis of false documents. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner was called upon by the 1st respondent to produce the documents to show that the property in question is a wakf property. The petitioner submitted all the documents including the order of injunction granted by the Wakf Tribunal in I.A.No.123 of 2008 in O.S.No.34 of 2008. It is alleged that though the above said documents established that the property in question is a wakf property, the 2nd respondent submitted a report to the 1st respondent recommending grant of building permission in favour of the respondents 3 and 4 and pursuant thereto the respondents 3 and 4 were called upon to pay the requisite fee. Aggrieved by the said action of the 1st respondent, this writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in considering the application of the respondents 3 and 4 for grant of construction permission in respect of the property in question is arbitrary and illegal. Though no counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, in their counter-affidavit the respondents 3 and 4 contended that they are the lawful owners of the property bearing Nos.21-4-1046 to 1054 admeasuring 1037.77 sq. yards having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 17.3.2005 and that they had rightly applied for building permission. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. It is to be noticed that the dispute relating to the title and ownership of the property in question is the subject-matter of O.S.No. 34 of 2008 which is pending on the file of A.P. State Wakf Tribunal filed by the petitioner. The respondents 3 and 4 as well as the A.P. State Wakf Board are parties to the said suit which is still pending. The rival claims made by the writ petitioner and the respondents 3 and 4 herein which apparently involve several disputed questions of fact require consideration by the Tribunal after full-fledged trial. Apparently, the grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is only with regard to the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in accepting the application made by the respondents 3 and 4 for grant of building permission and processing the same. Though it is alleged by the petitioner that the permission as sought by the respondents 3 and 4 is about to be granted by the 1st respondent Corporation ignoring the objections raised by him, the same cannot be a sufficient ground to issue a Writ of Mandamus since it cannot be assumed at this stage that the 1st respondent Corporation would not act in accordance with law. Even according to the petitioner, he was called upon by the respondents 1 and 2 to submit the documents to show that the property belongs to Wakf Board and the petitioner had already submitted the said documents. Admittedly, no order as such has been passed by the 1st respondent in favour of the respondents 3 and 4 granting building permission. Hence, the writ petition which is based on the mere apprehensions of the petitioner is premature. It is also relevant to note that the injunction granted by the Tribunal in I.A.No.123 of 2008 restraining the respondents 3 and 4 from making any constructions over the land in question is subsisting as on today. Since no building permission as such is granted in favour of the respondents 3 and 4, there is no cause of action for the present writ petition. As expressed above, at this stage it cannot be assumed that the respondents 1 and 2 would grant construction permission over the property in question acting contrary to law. Hence, no Mandamus can be issued as prayed for. However, there shall be a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to process the application of the respondents 3 and 4 strictly in accordance with law after considering the objections raised by the writ petitioner as well as the A.P. State Wakf Board. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. Needless to mention that the interim order dated 22.1.2009 in WPMP.No.576 of 2009 shall stand vacated. ______________ G. ROHINI,J. Dt. 06.07.2009 gbs