A.P. State Wakf Board v. E. Venkatesh Ghoud
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 10 Sep 2004
- Bench
- BILAL NAZKI
Provisions considered
- Wakf Act, 1995 s. 83(9)
Judgment
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE : BILAL NAZKI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3921 of 2004 Petition under Section 83 (9) Wakf Act, 1995 to revise the Order of the court of the A.P.Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad in IA.No. 482 of 2003 in O.S.No. 95 of 2003 dated 03-09-2003. Between: A.P. State Wakf Board, rep.by its Chief Executive Officer, Nampally, Hyderabad Petitioner AND
E. Venkatesh Ghoud S/O E. Narayana Goud, 35 years, 2. E. Ayyanna Goud S/O E. Pedda Somanna Goud, 46 years, ( Both are R/O Srikrishna Colony, Kurnool ) Petitioners/Plaintiffs
Govt. of A.P., rep. by Principal Secretary, Minorities Welfare (W –1) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.
District Collector, Kurnool District, Kurnool. Respondents The petition coming on for orders as to admission upon perusing the memorandum of grounds filed therein and the order of the High Court dated 13-8- 2004 made in CMP.No. 13280 of 2004 and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. S.M.Subani advocate for the petitioner and the court made the following order: “List next Friday. In the meantime, status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained. ” // TRUE COPY // ASSISTANT REGISTRAR for ASSISTANT REGISTRAR To
1. The Presiding Officer, A.P.Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad 2. E. Venkatesh Ghoud S/O E. Narayana Goud, 35 years, 3. E. Ayyanna Goud S/O E. Pedda Somanna Goud, 46 years, ( Both are R/O Srikrishna Colony, Kurnool )
4. The Principal Secretary, Minorities Welfare (W –1) Department, Govt. of A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad.
District Collector, Kurnool District, Kurnool.
One Spare Copy USR HIGH COURT BNJ DATED: 03-09-2004 NOTE: LIST NEXT FRIDAY
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Wakf Act, 1995 — s. 83(9).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 10 Sep 2004. The bench was BILAL NAZKI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.