APHC010686062022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] WEDNESDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 40657/2022 Between: Gulam Hussain ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SOMISETTY GANESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. MOHAMMED GAYASUDDIN 2. GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following ORDER: Heard Sri S.Ganesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shaik Khaza Basha, learned standing counsel for respondents 2 & 3. 2. Impugning the proceedings vide F.No.02/K/NDL/Koka Yaseen/2022, dated 14.10.2022 issued by the 2nd respondent constituting a managing committee by 4th respondent and rejecting the request of the petitioner to continue as Mutawalli to Idgah known as Kokayaseen Saheb, Banaganapalli Town, Kurnool District vide 2 F.No.04/Towllath/KNL/2016/Z-IV, dated 21.11.2022, the above writ petition is filed. 3. (a) Averments in brief: The petitioner’s forefather Koka Yaseen Saheb is the founder of the Idgah situated in Sy.No.147/1, in an extent of Ac.1-20 cents of Banaganapalli Village and Mandal, Kurnool District about 160 years ago. The said Idgah is popularly known as Koka Yaseen Saheb Idgah. Sri late Koka Yaseen Saheb acted as the Manager of the Idgah and thereafter, his family members have been managing Idgah as Mutawallis. The petitioner has been acting as Mutawalli of Idgah for the last 32 years. (b) The Government assigned Ac.1-20 cents in Sy.No.147/1 of Banaganapalli Village in favour of the petitioner’s mother. The Waqf Board registered the said Idgah as a waqf Institution vide Muntakhab F.No.B3/16/KNL/2003, dated 27.11.2004. The 2nd respondent by proceedings dated 22.07.2016 (Ex.P.1) appointed the petitioner as Muthawalli for two years. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation to continue him as Muthawalli. However, the said request was rejected by intimation vide F.No.04/Towllath/KNL/2016/Z-IV, dated 21.11.2022 (Ex.P.6). By proceedings F.No.02/K/NDL/Koka Yaseen/2022, dated 14.10.2022 (Ex.P.7), the managing committee was constituted for one year. 4. A counter-affidavit was filed by the 2nd respondent wherein it was contended, inter alia, that as per the Waqf Board’s record, Muntakhab was registered on 26.03.2004 in respect of Ac.1-20 cents in Sy.No.147/1 for Idgah known as Koka Yaseen Saheb. The then Muthawalli Sri S.Noor Mohammed, S/o Abdul Raheem of Banaganapalli Village and Mandal has sent a proposal for registering open land to an extent of Ac.1-20 cents in Sy.No.147/1. The petitioner’s application dated 10.05.2016 to appoint as 3 Muthawalli, a report was called for from Inspector Audit, Waqf, and thereafter, he would appoint as Muthawalli for two years by proceedings dated 22.07.2016. After the expiry of the term, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 20.03.2022. Local persons sent a representation against the petitioner that he had constructed two houses within the premises of Idgah without obtaining permission from the Gram Panchayat. A report was called for from the Inspector Auditor, Waqf who submitted his report on 12.11.2019. The petitioner filed O.S.No.33 of 1997 for injunction and the said suit was dismissed. The request of the petitioner to appoint him as Muthawalli was rejected and the managing committee was constituted. There is no evidence on record to show that the ancestor of the petitioner was the founder member of the Idgah. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that rejecting the case of the petitioner to appoint him as Muthawalli, is without reason. The petitioner never misused Waqf's property. 6. Per contra, learned standing counsel would submit that by assigning valid reasons, the petitioner’s representation was rejected and thereafter, a managing committee was constituted for one year. Consideration: 7. The report of the Inspector Auditor, Waqf submitted by the CEO of the 2nd respondent is filed as Ex.P.3. A perusal of Ex.P.3 would indicate that the petitioner constructed two rooms, with his funds. One room is used for janimaazzes, and water pipes and another room for the plastic pipes Wuzu taps (temporary fitting) etc.. The petitioner has been managing the accounts of the Idgah. There is no income to the Idgah except the collection of chanda on Ramzan and Bakrid prayers. Idgah is 4 located in an extent of Ac.1-20 cents in S.No.147/1. The rooms constructed are in Sy.No.152/1A, which is Government land. 8. Thus, as seen from the report submitted by the Inspector Auditor, Waqf, no adverse comments were made against the petitioner regarding the misusing of any Waqf property. In fact, the petitioner constructed two rooms with his funds and the said rooms have been used for better administration of the Waqf. While rejecting the case of the petitioner to continue as Muthawalli, two reasons were mentioned; (1) the Majority of the mussallies requested to constitute a managing committee instead of the appointment of Muthawalli under Section 63 of Waqf Act,1995 and (2) the petitioner made constructions of room without prior permission from the Waqf Board. 9. As discussed supra, in respect of the second ground that the petitioner made construction without permission from the Waqf Board, it is contrary to the report of the Inspector Auditor, Waqf Board. The first ground, it is a Board resolution passed regarding the constitution of the managing committee in respect of Muthawallis. The 2nd respondent has to examine each case independently. The rejection order suffers from non- application of mind and hence it is liable to be set aside. 10. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the intimation vide F.No.04/Towllath/KNL/2016/Z-IV, dated 21.11.2022 (Ex.P.6) is hereby set aside. The petitioner is at liberty to make a fresh representation to the 2nd respondent by annexing relevant documents seeking to consider his case for Muthawalli of Idgah known as Koka Yaseen Saheb, Banaganapalli Village, Kurnool District within four weeks from today. On receipt of such representation, the 2nd respondent shall place the matter before the Waqf Board within eight weeks thereafter. In respect of the other prayer 5 regarding the constitution of the committee, no further adjudication is required since the term of the committee has expired by efflux of time. 11. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J Date: 12.03.2025 KA 6 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION No.40657 OF 2022 Date: 12.03.2025 KA