THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY + Writ Petition No.28126 of 2007 % 08-04-2009 Between: Qazi Mohammed Najamuddin Hussain …Petitioner And Govt. of A.P., Minorities Welfare Department, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Hyderabad and others. …Respondents ! Counsel for Petitioner : Sri R. Chandra Sekhar Reddy ^ Counsel for Respondents : G.P for Minority Welfare Dept. & Sri B. Vijaysen Reddy, for R-3 < Gist: > Head Note: ? CITATIONS: 1. 2005 (6) ALT 663 (D.B) THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.28126 of 2009 ORDER: The father of the 3rd respondent was functioning as Khazi for the Secunderabad area. He made a request to the Government of Andhra Pradesh Minorities Department, the 1st respondent herein, to appoint his son, the 3rd respondent, as Khazi. Acceding to the request, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.29, dated 05-09-2007, appointing the 3rd respondent as Khazi. The petitioner is functioning as a Khazi in the same area, on being recognized by the Atiyat Court. The petitioner challenges the G.O., on several grounds. It is contended that the post of Khazi for Hyderabad and Secunderabad is governed by the Farman and declarations issued by the erstwhile Ruler, Nizam, and that 1st respondent has no power or jurisdiction to appoint Khazis. It is also stated that the Khazi Act, 1880 (for short ‘the Act’) has no application for the area known as Quilla, Mohammed Nagar, which covers Hyderabad and Secunderabad Cities. The petitioner further contends that even otherwise the procedure prescribed under the Act was not followed. Heard Sri R. Chandra Shekhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Minority Welfare Department, and Sri B. Vijaysen Reddy, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. The petitioner is functioning as a Khazi on the basis of a Muntaqab (order) issued under the Atiyat Enquiries Act. The Khazis Act was extended to the State of Hyderabad in the early 1950’s. Almost at the same point of time, the Muslim Wakf Act, 1954 came into force. The erstwhile Government of Andhra Pradesh issued order dated 27-08-1955, bringing the institution of Khazi under the purview of Wakf Board. The petitioner states that his ancestors functioned as Khazis, and that he inherited the same. The father of the 3rd respondent Noor-Ul-Hyder Haqnuma Soofi, has also been functioning as Khazi in Sescunderabad, since 1947. Obviously, because his appointment was before the extension of the Act to the State of Andhra Pradesh, it is not referable to it. He appointed his son, the 3rd respondent as a Naib Khazi. He submitted a representation to the 1st respondent on 25-11-2006 with a request to appoint his son, the 3rd respondent ,as Khazi. The grounds urged by the petitioner are that the Act has no application to the city of Hyderabad and Secunderabad, and that even otherwise, the prescribed procedure was not followed. The first contention is difficult to be accepted. It is a matter of record that the Act was extended, initially to the erstwhile State of Hyderabad, and thereafter to the State of Andhra Pradesh, after 1956. No exception is carved out vis-à-vis the city of Hyderabad. The proceedings of the Atiyat Court, relied upon by the petitioner, are only to the effect that, consequent on the extension of the Act to the State of Hyderabad, and formation of Wakf Boards, the Khazis shall function under the control of the Wakf Board. Further, the Atiyat Courts do not have the jurisdiction to stall the application of the Act, in a particular area. Their function was only to determine inheritance. In certain cases, the Qazzath, i.e., office of Khazi, was also treated as heritable. So far as the second contention is concerned, the only allegation made by the petitioner is that the consultation as provided for under Section 2 of the Act, was not made. Reliance is placed upon the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Quazi Mohd. Nijmuddin Hussain v. State of Andhra Pradesh[1]. In that case also, appointment of Khazis, through orders issued by the Government was challenged. The Division Bench of this Court pointed out that, some of the provisions of the Act need to be made, more specific, and refrained itself from expressing any clear opinion. None of the orders challenged in that case were set aside. The consultation, provided for under Section 2, is not required to be in any particular manner. The Act does not provide for issuance of any public notification, calling for objections, or inviting submissions. In the instant case, the 3rd respondent was already functioning as Naib Khazi, under his father. It was almost the case of putting a seal of approval, on what it already existing. The appointment of the 3rd respondent did not add to the strength of Khazis in the area. The reason is that, his appointment is in the place of his father. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any basis to interfere with the impugned G.O. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.08-04-2009. KO [1] 2005 (6) ALT 663 (D.B)