High Court · 2025

...Petitioner/Plaintiff R/o.H.No.5-6-849' AND ,Hl;i[1.,i"i?11,i,e,JsJf,,ir:ff l.[i$i1;,i33i,,'^?,,fi :iir3;f;':#".o1""' :'"'1lY?3LL'3ii HYderabad. 'US*i+:$jf"*11Ti'3a,i1"#,t'il,#iqP;ff "'?'fi 3. Telangana State Wakf Board' represented. by its Chief Executive Officer' ' p;$3;;+u*p:*,.*W-il1t+*tffi 11$ R/o H'No 13-3-125' Mustatopura' Hyqeraudu' IA NO: 10F 2024 ...Respondents/Defendants PetitionunderSection'l5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin tne atiOavit filed in support of the petition, ine Higl"' Court may be pleased to liitrii -'prl*+trgJ i. O.S.No.oS ot z0rA on the file of Telansana State Waqf -stay Tribunal at HYderbbad. Counsel for the petitioner : Sri K. Rama Subba Rao Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 4: _ counser for the Respondent No. 3 : sri Abu Akram (Not present Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 : None appeared The Court made the following: ORDER r HON,BLE SRI IUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVI REVISIONP ETITONN o.1,3000F 2024 ORDER: dated 27-032024 This Civil Revision Petitron is filed challengtng the order in I.A.No'717 of 2023 in O'S'No 63 of 2018 passed by the Telangana State Waqf Tribunal at Hyderabad (for short 'Waqf Tribunal') Therefore, the

2. Heard Sri K'I{ama Subba Rao' learned counsei f or petitioner. No rePresentation on behalf of resPondent No'3 though Sri Abu Akram filed Vakalat' Though notice served on resPondent no.2, there is no rePresentation on his behalf ' Respondent Nos'1 and 4 are not necessary Parties CRP is disposed of basing on material available on record' 3. Learned counsel for petitioner had contended that filed the suit in O'S'No'63 of 2018 before the Waqf Tribunal for perpetual iniunction against the respondents in resPect of the house bearing No'5-6-849 admeasuring 70 square yards situated at Mahmood Bagh, Namparly, Hyderabad lt is further contended that when the matter was coming up for trial' petitioner/plaintiff \ \ \ ,l I i i l 2 LNA,) ('R] No t300 ol202t the respon,lr::.rt no.2 herein filed suit in o.s.No.95 of 2(t22 belore the Waqf Tr;bunal for perpetual injunction against the petitioner herein and oihers in rpspect of the property i.e., hous,: bearing No.5-6-849r'.,\ admeasuring 57 square yards situated at Swamy Dayanand lr agar, Aghapura, Nampally, East Hyderal.,ad. It is further contendecl that both the suits are pending before rhe Waqf Tribunal and he Telangana State Wakf Board is a parh.in both the suits. Peritioner herein filed the suit in O.S.No.63 of .201g claiming to Lrr: a tenant of respondent No.3_Wakf Boarci, whereas respondent \c.2 filed the suit in O.S.No.95 of 2022 ciainung title against the r,:slrondent No.3-Wakf Board.

4. In those r:ircumstances, petitioner herein filed I.A.N c.717 of 2023 to club bcth the suits io conduct joint trial to avoid conJlict decisions. Ho-,,,,ever, the Waqf Tribunal, by impugnec: order dated 27.03.2024, dismissed the application on err oneous conclusion tha t bottnclaries and extents in both the su its are different and also owners are different and, therefore, s< hedule properties in t'oth the suits are not one and the same, v,zithout appreciating th e grounds raised by the petitioner. LNA,J CRP No. I 300 of 2024 3

5. Perusal of the record would disclose that both the suits are filed in resPect of house bearing No'5-6-849 admeasuring 70 square yards and house bearing No'5-6-849/A admeasuring 57 square yards and both are situated in Nampally' It is also evident from the plaints that respondent No'3-Waqf Board is common rn both the suits' Petitioner filed the suit in O'S'No'63 of 2018 claiming that he is a tenant of suit property' which is a registered waqf pioperty, whereas in a suit O'S No'95 of 2022' th.e respondent No'2 is claiming title against the Telangana Waqf Board. It is evident from the description of the property that the boundaries are different' however' it is a specific contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that suit schedule property in O.S.No.63 of 2018 is 70 square yards' whereas the property claimed by the respondent No'2 in O'S'No'95 of 2022 is only 57 square yards and in fact' schedule proPerty in O'S'No'95 of 2022 is part of the suit ProPertY in O.S.No.63 of 2018' It is further evident from the record that the house 6. numbers of the schedule ProPerties in both the suites are one and the same, however, extent of suit schedule ProPerty rn O SNo,95- ( I 4 LNA,,] C W No tJ00 oJ20ja

4. of 2022 is k155 g6ur., the suit schedule property in O.S.No.63 of 2018 and it is also represented by the learned c()unsel for petiLioner that in fact, suit schedule property in O.S.No.95 of 2022 is part of suit schedule property in O.S.No.63 of 2q7|,therefore, 'nafurally tJle boundaries of the properties are diffe,rent and therefore', ;ther principal ground on which the waqf Tribunal dismissed thr: application appears to be contrary to the material. Pima facie, it appears that house numbers of schedule properties in both the r;uits are one and the same and therefore, it ir; 3lryayg appropriate that the ma tters be clubbed together and Cecided jointly to avc,itl conflict decisions.

7. In vierv cf above discussion, the Civil Revision l)etition deserves to be allowed and accordingly a owecl and consequently, L,{.No.717 of 2023 in O.S.No.63 of 2018 filed by the petitioner stands allowed There shall be no order as to cosis Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII Sd/- P. CH. NAGABHUSH AMBA ASt'TANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER I:,lnnji?-Sirte Waqf Tribunat at Hyderabad. CC to Sri K Rama Subba Rao, no'r*"tllopucf 99 lo CD Copies Sri Abtr Akram, Advocate tOpUCl To, The One One Two

1. z 3. 4. L/gh ^ D _{t{.. . j .:., l-:f HIGH COURT DATED:11t02t2O25 t t1r:- s i4 ir4r 1 s o( 'r 1li r:,il 2trl5 j .+ -r ,i -, * ,// '-- --_ --- __2?' ORDER CRP.No.1300 of 2O24 O )r, ALLOWNG THE C.R.P 6 J$