Telangana High Court
WP/26321/2005 of Syed Shameeran Khadri , Syed Khaiaoasha, Vs The A.P. State Wakf Board, on 27 December 2005
MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.26321 of 2005 Dated:27.12.2005 Between: Syed Shameeran Khadri @ Syed Khaiaoasha, S/o. Syed Nasarulla Khadri, H.No.28-66, Peta, Near One Town, Kurnool, Kurnool Dist, and another. ..... PETITIONERS AND The A.P. State Wakf Board, Rep. By its Chief Executive
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Conclusion
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO
WRIT PETITION No.26321 of 2005
Dated:27.12.2005
Between:
Syed Shameeran Khadri @ Syed Khaiaoasha, S/o. Syed Nasarulla Khadri,H.No.28-66, Peta, Near One Town, Kurnool,Kurnool Dist, and another.
..... PETITIONERS
AND
The A.P. State Wakf Board, Rep. By its Chief Executive Officer,Haj House Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad, and another.
.....RESPONDENTS
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO
ORDER:
WRIT PETITION No.26321 of 2005
The two petitioners are aggrieved by the endorsement dated 29.09.2005 issued bythe second respondent, whereby and whereunder, while refusing to issue pattadarpassbooks and title deeds to the petitioners, the second respondent informed thatthe properties claimed by them in Survey Nos.45 and 125 of Mamidalapadu Village,Kurnool, belong to wakf known as Yahoo Mosque, and that pattadar passbooks areprepared in favour of Wakf Board.
Opposing the writ petition, the learned Standing Counsel for the A.P.State WakfBoard, the first respondent herein, submits that pursuant to the survey conducted bythe Commissioner, Wakfs, in 1956, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued anotification under Section 5 of the Wakf Act, 1954, notifying Yahoo Mosque as awakf, and the properties claimed by the petitioners belong to wakf. It is also broughtto the notice of this Court by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that in 1969, theWakf Board filed a suit, being O.S.No.50 of 1969 on the file of the Court of theAdditional Subordinate Judge, Kurnool, for possession, in which the petitionersherein were shown as defendant Nos.13 and 14 and that the suit was dismissed by the said Court on 31.01.1970. In view of this, the learned Counsel seeks permissionto withdraw the writ petition and approach the appellate authority under Section 5(5)of the A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971.
Giving liberty to do so, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs.
____________
(V.V.S.RAO, J)
27.12.2005
vs