APHC010127642018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] MONDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1141/2018 Between: 1. SUNNI IDGAH MOSQUE, OPP TO APSRTC BUS STAND BELLARY ROAD, KURNOOL, REP BY ITS MUTAWALLI AND GOVERNMENT KHAZI HAFIZ SYED SALEEM BASHA, S/O SULTAN BASAH, AGED 49 YEARS, R/O D NO. 9/11, PETA, KURNOOL CITY AND DISTRIC 2. THE A.P. STATE WAKF BOARD,, REP BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, HAJJ HOUSE, OPP PUBLIC GARDENS, NAMPALLY, HYDERABAD …PETITIONER(S) AND 1. MADRASSA E RIYAZ, Regd No. 439/99, rep by its Secretary Sri Masoom Miya, SA) Shaik Bade Sahab, Aged 75 years, Occ Retired employee, R/o 51/952/1E, Revenue Colony, Market Yard, Kurnool City and District ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased toThis Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition against the Judgment and Decree, dated 14-11-2017 in 0. S.No. 144/2010 on the file of Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad, IA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased To grant remperory injunction restraining the resposndent his men,agents,subordinates,employees any other person or persons claiming under him, his henchmenetc., from interfering in peaceful possession, maintaining in manner whatsoever over the suit schedule property in O.S.No.144/2010 of A.P.State Wakf Tribunal Hyderabad and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. MOHAMMED GAYASUDDIN Counsel for the Respondent: 1. SURYAM GANNAVARAPU The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1141 of 2018 ORDER : 1. No representation for the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent present and the cause in the present CRP would not survive as the petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Waqf Tribunal dated 14.11.2017. 2. The suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Tribunal after an elaborate trial and after recording the evidences and also marking exhibits. The petitioner’s father-in-law was a Muthavali was earlier of the petitioner Edga. Subsequently, the petitioner step into the shoes of father-in-law as Muthavali and had started claiming the property of the respondent as the property belonging to the petitioner. The suit was dismissed by the Tribunal as the petitioner failed to establish the right and title over the suit schedule property. On the contrary, the Tribunal had held that the property of this respondent is not a Wakf property and that it is a private property of the 1st defendant and the Wakf Board has refused to register the same as Wakf property inspite of the petitioner submitting an application. 3. It was also held that the petitioner was not a Muthavali to the schedule property as such he was not entitled for the declaration as sought for. 4. Recording the submissions, nothing further survives in the CRP and accordingly dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N KGM 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1141 of 2018 Dated 21.07.2025 KGM