IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.33795 of 2014 BETWEEN SMD.Fayaz ... PETITIONER AND A.P.State Wakf Board, Hyderabad and others ...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. Petitioner, who claims to be the tenant of the Wakf institution, respondent No.2, which is presently under the management of the Wakf board, states that while he was the tenant of a shop, the then Managing Committee was interfering with his possession and forcing him to vacate. He, therefore, filed O.S.No.126 of 2013 before the A.P.State Wakf Tribunal and vide orders of the Tribunal, dated 11.09.2013, in I.A.No.1395 of 2013, interim injunction was granted in favour of the petitioner. However, notwithstanding the said injunction, the then Managing Committee and respondent No.3 allegedly dispossessed him highhandedly and forcibly on 22.10.2013. Petitioner, therefore, approached the Tribunal by filing an I.A. on 25.10.2013 seeking restoration of possession. However, it is stated that the Wakf Tribunal is not functioning as the Presiding Officer is not available since one year. Petitioner, therefore, made an application to the Inspector of Auditor, A.P.Wakf Board, which is made incharge of the institution by the Board. The said application, dated 23.10.2013 is stated to be pending and hence, this writ petition is filed seeking consideration and disposal of the said application.
3. Evidently, the wakf institution is now under the direct management of the Board and if the petitioner seeks redelivery of his tenanted premises, he must approach the wakf board with an appropriate application.
Writ petition is, therefore, disposed of permitting the petitioner to make appropriate application before the A.P.Wakf Board, who shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders if the tenanted shop of the petitioner is still vacant. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J November 11, 2014 LMV