Telangana High Court
WP/27761/2007 of Zaheer Ahmed Khan Vs Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board, Rep. by its on 27 December 2007
SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 27761 of 2007 27.12.2007 Between: Zaheer Ahmed Khan & others … Petitioners AND Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board, Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer, Hyderabad … Respondent Counsel for the petitioners : Sri A.M. Qureshi O R
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No. 27761 of 2007
27.12.2007
Between:Zaheer Ahmed Khan & others
… Petitioners
AND
Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board,Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer,Hyderabad … Respondent Counsel for the petitioners : Sri A.M. Qureshi
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.
O R D E R:
This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare non-payment of the petitioners’ shares from the income of Koh-e-moulali, Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District and in not considering theirrepresentations dated 30.01.2004 and 21.04.2004 as illegal andarbitrary.
Heard Sri A.M. Qureshi, learned counsel for the petitioners andperused the record.
The case of the petitioners, as could be seen from theaverments contained in the affidavit, is that a Munthakab bearing No.121/1963 was granted by Atiyat Court in favour of Gulam Ali Khan,Muthavalli of the above-mentioned dargah and the father of petitionerNo.1 and that he died on 22.05.1998. The applications filed by thepetitioners for recognizing them as successors of the deceasedMuthavalli were eventually allowed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District by order dated 15.07.2003. The petitioners, however,averred that petitioner No.1 was removed as Muthavalli by AndhraPradesh State Wakf Board on 15.07.2003 and questioning thesame, he initiated proceedings before the Andhra Pradesh WakfTribunal.
The grievance of the petitioners is that though under the above-mentioned Munthakab, they are entitled to substantial part of theincome earned by the Wakf, the petitioners are not being paid thesame for many years and that the above-mentioned tworepresentations made by them to the respondent have not beendisposed of.
At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted thatthe petitioners will be satisfied if their representations made on30.01.2004 and 21.04.2004 are disposed of expeditiously by therespondent.
In view of this statement of the learned counsel for the petitionerand without going into the merits of the case, the writ petition isdisposed of. The respondent is directed to consider and dispose ofrepresentations dated 30.01.2004 and 21.04.2004 said to have beensent by the petitioners within a period of six weeks from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this order. The respondent shall hear thepetitioners in person before disposing of their representations.
As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No. 36309of 2007 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of asinfructuous.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
ksld