IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 6130 of 2008 Between: Mohd. Abdul Hameed, S/o. Mohd. Abdul Qadeer, R/o. H.No. 17-3-198/58/A, Yakuthpura, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Andhra Pradesh Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad. 2 State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Municipal Administration, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 The District Collector, Hyderabad, Having Office at Chirag Ali Lane, Hyderabad. 4 The Mandal Revenue officer, Charminar Mandal, Having Office Near Charminar Bus Stop, Hyderabad. 5 A.P. Central Power Distribution Company Limited, Through its Managing Director & Chairman, having office at Singaerni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad. 6 Executie Engineer, A.P.C.P.D.C.L. (CIVIL), Metro Mint Compound, Khairtabad, Hyderabad. 7 The Assistant Executive Engineer, Master Plan, Civil/Master Plan II A.P.C.P.D.C.l. Metro Mint Compound, Khairtabad, Hyderabad. 8 The A.P. Wakf Board Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer, Having its Office at Razzack Manzil,m Nampally Road, 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 order or directing more particularly one of the nature of Writ of Certiorari by setting aside the finding of the respondent No.1 dated 21-1-2008 and 24-1-2008 as erroneous and unconstitutional and direct the respondent No.1 to number the suit and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.HAROON OSMAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO.6130 OF 2008 ORAL ORDER: The petitioner, questioning the docket order dated 24.01.2008, passed by the Presiding Officer of the first respondent-Andhra Pradesh Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad, refusing to number the suit instituted by him, on the ground that already another suit, claiming similar relief, is pending before it, has filed the present writ petition. Even though notice before admission was ordered on 24.03.2008, and despite the respondent receiving the notice, they have neither entered their appearance nor filed counter. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the place where respondent Nos. 5 to 7 are constructing building is a graveyard, which was and is being used by the members of their family as also their community for burying the dead, and the petitioner being an affected party by such actions of respondent Nos. 5 to 7, is entitled to file a suit, and as such, the impugned docket order dated 24.01.2008, passed by respondent No.1-Wakf Tribunal, refusing to number the suit instituted by the petitioner on the ground that already there is a suit pending which was instituted by some other persons seeking similar relief, is illegal and arbitrary, and prayed that the same be set aside and respondent No.1-Wakf Tribunal be directed to number the suit and take the same on file. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record, including the impugned docket order. The petitioner claims that the place where respondent Nos. 5 to 7 are constructing building is a graveyard and that the members of his family and his community bury the dead bodies of their kith and kin in the said place. Assailing such action of respondent Nos. 5 to 7, the petitioner instituted suit before respondent No.1-Wakf Tribunal. However, respondent No.1-Wakf Tribunal, passed docket order dated 24.01.2008, refusing to number the suit instituted by the petitioner, which reads as follows: “Heard and perused the records. This suit is filed for declaration of suit property as wakf and possession by the interested person under Section 3(k) of the Wakf Act, 1995. There is already a suit in O.S.No.50 of 2007 pending on the file of this Tribunal claiming same reliefs filed by other interested persons. The defendants in both the cases are almost all same. The counsel for the plaintiff alleged mala fides and collusion between the parties in O.S.No.50 of 2007. There is nothing new for adjudication in this suit. No purpose is solved if this suit is numbered. In the circumstances of the case, the plaintiff herein has to make out a case to come on record in O.S.No.50 of 2007 for just adjudication. Hence object taken is sustained. Plaint is returned.” A perusal of the impugned order shows that the plaint has been returned on the premise that another suit was already instituted in respect of the same property before respondent No.1-Wakf Tribunal by some other interested parties for the same relief and the defendants in both the suits are almost all same and, therefore, petitioner was directed to get himself impleaded in the suit already instituted by other interested persons. Since the petitioner is an affected party, he is entitled to institute a separate suit, and as such, respondent No.1-Wakf Tribunal, could not have passed the impugned docket order, refusing to number the suit, and return the same to the petitioner. This action of respondent No.1-Wakf Tribunal, is not only unknown to law, but is against the provisions of the A.P. Wakf Act, 1995 particularly Sections 3(k) and 6 thereof. In that view of the matter, the impugned docket order passed by respondent No.1- Wakf Tribunal, cannot be sustained, and the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed and the impugned docket order is hereby set aside. The Registry is directed to return the suit papers to the petitioner for filing the same before respondent No.1-Wakf Tribunal. The Presiding Officer of respondent No.1-Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad, shall, without reference to the objection taken under the impugned docket order, number the suit to be instituted by the petitioner, if the same is otherwise in order, and take the same on file, for consideration. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J. Date: 03.07.2008 VGSR / KSR