The High Court · 2025

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 pass orders to vacate the orders Dated 2010912023 passed in w.P.No.25329 of 2023, and this Honourable Court. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI MOHD ASHFAQ Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR REVENUE I Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.2 to 4: SRI ABU AKRAM Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 & 6 : -- Counsel for the Proposed Respondent No.7 : SMT AARIFA IMRAN KHAN The Court made the following ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMI\PAKA WRIT PETITION No. 25329 OF 2o23 ORDER Pe[itioners claim to be the joint orvners and possessors ol- the property bcaring Municipal Ito. 13-6-337, admt-iLsrtring .580 squarc yards situated ttt Krrrrvall Sahu, Hvclerabarl, 'l'elangana, by virtue of a registercd sale deed dated

24.O3. 1994 ernd lhey havc been living in the above me utionccl prope rlv lirr rrtattv clecades.

2. It rs stated, the vendor of petitioner Sri Gulam Dastergir S/o Late Babu Shah, as the G.P.A Holder of one Mrs Sa-veed Unnisa Begum W/o Late Dr. Mustafa Baig sold thc .Ati abovc propertl' along r,r'ith his ancestral propert\. His vendor purchascrl tl-re portion of the house bearing N urlicipal No. I 13-6 337, a<lrnezrsuring 355.20 square yards uide r.:gistered serle: deed clirted | 1.04.1.967 which shows that the lrropertv is a priv.ltc properti'in existence from 1967 and even prior to lhat also.

2.1 Acljacen t to Lhe property, there scerrs to exisl a Waqf lnstitution u'ith Municipal No. 13-6-336 notiilerl in thrr supplcrncnt o[ Part-ll of The Andhra Pradesh Ga;ette No. 12A -/ 2 dated 21.03.1985 at Serial No. 1857 and Mutau,alli of the said Institution was recorded as H. E.l l The Nizams. While so, u'hen pctitioners are demolishing the old structures in the subject propcrty, on 28.12.2022, Resporrdents 2 to 4 camc thcre and without issuing any notice whatsoever seized the propcrty. On cnquiry, they informed that said property is waqf and pctilioners are land grabbers. When approachcd the 2"d rcspondent, he assured that he would verify Lhe documenls and take further steps. It is stated that since Respondents 3 and 4 gavc a false report under the influence of locaI leadcrs, pe tiLioners made them party rcspondents in their personal capacit ies.

2.2 The 3.0 respondent had given a complaint against pe titioners based on which F.l.R No. 21 of 2O23 forlthc offences under Sections 427 and 44a lPC. was registered on the file of Tappachabutra Police Station. In the entire complzrint, there is no referencc of seizing of property. This particular aspect gocs to show that seizure is i1legal and without jurisdiction. It is stated, since January 2023, be has been requesting the 2'd respondent [o remove seals, but they have been dragging the issue or] one reason or the other. Therefore, they made representation on - .,

13.O7.20'23 ro Respondents 2 and 3, but till date, no action has been initiatcd.

3. B_r'ordcr datcd 2O.O9.2023, this Court u,hile issuing noticc bcfirrc aclmission, granted interim :lirection to Respondcnts 2 ro 4 to forthwith remove seals o the subject proper6..

4. Subsequently, by order dated 13.02.20 I in I.A.No. 2 of 2O)3, Au,clzrf Commitlee was impleadecl as the 7ri, respondent to thc Writ Petition. A coun ter-affidavit was filed or their behalf by ils Secrctar!' stzrting that aggrieved by the irrterim order darcd 2O-Oq.2023, Writ Appeal No.99O of 2023 wzLs preferred which u'as disposed of bv ordcr dated 12-10-2023 p.otecting the properLy from be ing further demolished an I dirccting marntenancc of-"St.ltus euo", so also permitting pr:titioncrs lo seek implc:rdmcnL as Respondent to the present Writ pbtit.ion as well as secking vacation of the order dateci 20_09_2023 4.1 It is statcd, Awqaf Committee has been constituted to look alter the Waqf in question, therefore, it sought implcadment zrs s'cll as vacation of the orders passed in the prese nt Writ Petitjon as by thc said impugned orders there was likelihood ol'the cntire religious building being demo ishecl il the lock and seal over and upon the said property were to be removcd. Hence in the said background, the intcrim order be vacated as pctitioners attempted to illcgally demolish the property by obtaining orders without impleading the Rcspor.rdent No.7 herein who is looking after thc duly notilicd Waql propcrty which is the subject matter of the present Writ.

4.2 As per the Andhra Pradesh Gazette Notillcatron datcd 21.03.1985 listed at Serial No.1857, the Ashoor Khanir known as "Ashoor Khana Makai Nal Sahcb" situatcd at premises No. 13 6-336, with four graves, house and fallou, lzrnd covering an area of 748.5 square yards is a duly notificd Waqf with H.E.H. The Nizam as the Mutawalli. The 71rl respondent has been looking after the same and has been conducting religious scrvices, overseeing the conduct of various rituqls, etcetera connectcd with the said Waqf institution lrom time to timc. tn fact, Petitioners in the documents hled in support of the Writ Pctition have categorically not only admitted the said fact but also staled that "it is the prerogative of the Mutawalli i.e. H.E.H Thc Nizams to perform Muharram Ceremonies and rituals in the Aashoor khana Makke Naal Saab" -, )

4.3 It rs also stated, Petitioner No. 1 with a view to grab the property, insrituted O S.No.51 of 2023 be fore the IX Junior Civil Judgc, City Civil Corrrts at Hlderabad and triid to obtain ad-interim injunction agerinst thc 2"d respondent by projecting totally lalse fabricated documents. In the sztid suiL, seeking rejecticrn of plaint, I.A.No.il87 ol 2023 rvas taken oLr by the 2nd Respondent Wirqf Board and upon placing the facts on record that a reprcscntation dated 2t3 I2-2O22 having bee r made anri enquiry conductcd in tl-rc subjcct matter, it was found that somc Iand grabbers and anti social elemcnts havc dcrrolished thc graves and arr:h (kamaan) ol Ashoor Khana, rooms and Alawn and damaged thc graves :rnd that based upon_ a complaint to the St{O TappaChabutra, F-lR No. 21 ol 2023 dated 12-Ot-2023 was also registered and it u'eLs also categorically spelt out in the said interlocutor5, applicaLion. Therealter, on an Apiplication filed by Petitioner No. l, suit u as permitted Lo lte wrthdrawn as per the ordcr dated 14.06.'2023. Subsequen[ly, the p resent Writ Petition was liled n ith frrlsc zrnd baseless allcgations. Based on the complaints of various locality residents, the 2"d lespondent issued directions that rcsulted in the above referrt.d FIR also being lodgecl and Ashoorkhana being sealed. Hence, it is prayed .-! 6 that thc present Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of supprcssion of facts.

5. Petitioner filed reply to the above counter stating that non-disclosure of hling of suit and its withdrawal is ncither intentional nor wanton but occurred due to the advice given by his counsel, u'ho statcd that Lhe suit was hled lor perpetual injunclion zrg:rinst the 2"a respondent and the u'rit petition is challcnging thc action of the 2"d respondent in sealing the propert] u'ithout jurisdiction and non-disclosure of suit, r,r'hich r,r,as u,ithdrzrr.r.n with a berty to file fresh suit, is not for the purpose of obtaining any order by playing fraud on this Court behind the back of the 2"d respondent. .Therefore, it is requcstcd, lo lakc lenient view. 5,I [t is stated, after liling the suit, baped on the assurance givcn by the 2''t responden[, petitioner had withdran'n the suit with liberty to hle fresh suit and thereaftcr, thcy submittcd representation dated 13.07.2023, howevcr, no action was taken by thc 2"d respondent to remove the seal of house, u'hich is private property adjacent to Ashoorkhana. The allegation that there is a likelihood that entire religious building would be demolished if lock and seal were [o be removcd, is 1 false. It is reiterated that their property and nr>tified waqf property are adjac'ent to cach othcr and they clernrlished their own house and hzrve not touchcd the waqf propert\,. It is als<r statecl, the Ttlr respondent is not a part). to thc surt and never filed any implead petition and h:rve not explainecl as to what prevented thom to file appropri:rte application to implead themselves iu the suit though the suit was trrcnding from 03.O1.2023 t<'t 14.06.2023 and the 7rr, respontlent came into picturc only aftcr the intenm orclcr rvas passcd .i,hich shows that the 7th respondent approachcd this Court r,.ir:h unclean hands by abusing the proccss ol larv. In fact, thc 7r, respondent had supprcssed rhat fact ot Application dated 1.1.0!r.2023 made by thcm for f-ixing up rhe boundaries of thc institution for identification of the l:r nd which is encroachcd lry the land encroachers and proceedings datecl 26.1O.2023 isr,ued by the 2"d respondent_

6. Heard Sri Mohd. Ashifaq, learned counseI for petitioner, Sri Abu Akram, lcarncd Standing Counse lor the 2,a respondent Waqf Board and Sri Aarifa Imran Khirn. learned counsel for the 7e respondent 8 \ -!

7. The case o[ petitioners is that the subject property is private propertv and the property claimed by the Waqf Board is in premises bezrring in M.C.H.No. 13-6-336. When they u'ere demotishing thc houses in thcir land, Respondents 2 to 4 came there and seizcd the property. On the other hand, it is thc case of the 7th rcspondcnt that petitioners, with a vieu' to grab the waqf propertl instiluted O.S.No. 5l of 2023 before thc lX Junior Civit Judge, Citv Civit Courts at Hyderabad and tried to obtain injunction agirinst the Waq[ Board. lt is their case that incorrect prcmises number was shown in the said plaint and an attempt vvas made to illegally project title upon an extent of 58O square yards u,h ich is part and parcel of the waqf property with false and fabricaled document. When the Board filed I.A.No 387 of 2023 seeking rejection of plaint on the ground that representation datecl 28.12.2022 was made stating that on enquiry conducted in the subject matter, it was found that some land grabbers ancl anti-social elcments demolished thc graves and based on the complaint, SHO, Tappachabutra registered FIR No. 2l ot'2023, datcd 12.0i.2023 and petitioner No.1 is a Iand grabber arnd created documents, immediately, petitioners ri,r(frdrew the suit as per orders dated. 14.06.2023 with liberty to - 9 file fresh suit. Respondents denied that there exis,lt:rl municipal nrrmber bearing No. 13 6 332 u.ithin the preL:ir rcts of thc notilled u,aqf zrnd projection ol the samc is only 1r) al tcmpt to mislead the Court.

8. ln vieq, of the above, it is clcar that thr rc are lactual aspects to be dccided in the matter, lor ivhich tl.ris Court under ArLicle 226 is not the appropriate forum. The pal rcs to the ljs, if so advised, can approach the civil Cor-rrt / Waq[ Trilrun:rl. 9. Further, it is poir-rted out bv the Trl,respondr:nt that pcLitioners havt: not disclosccl the lzrctum of liling thc suit and iLs withdrawal by order datcd 14.06.2O23 and rr .rilollnts to suppression of fact. When questioned, petitioners rclmirted the said fact and stated that non_clisclosurc is neitht.r wilful nor wanton 1O. It is well-setLled thar jurisdiction exerr.is,:cl by the High Court under Article 22tt of the Constitution o[ [r_rdia is cxtraordinary, cquitable and cliscretionary and it i:. impcrative thal petitioner approaching t he w,rit Court must r.r>mer with clean hands and put forward all lhe facts befcrre lhe Court without concealing or suppressing anything. A litiga rt is bound to state all the facts which zrrc relevant to rhe lilig rlion. If he t0 't withholds some vital or rclevant material in order to gain advantage over the oLher side, then he would be guitty of playing lraud u'ith the Court as rvcll as thc oppositc party which cannot be countenanccd. [n exercising cxtraordinary power, a writ Court would indeed bcar-in minci the conduct of the party which is invoHng such jurisdiction. If the applicant does no1 disclose full facts or suppresses relevanl materials or . is otherwise guilty ol mrsleacling Lhc Court, the Court m.ay dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter. I 1. In vie',i o[ tht: sevcral preccdenls set by the Hon'ble Apex Court with regard to supprcssion o[ facts, Lhis Court is of the view that anyone $'ho takes recourse [o method of suppression in a cour[ of lau,, is, in actuality, playing fraud upon the court, and tht maxim suppressio ueri, expressio falsi i.e. suppression of truth is equivalent to expression of falsehood, gets attracted since petitioner has not disclosed filing of suit concerning the subject propcrtv- and its dismissal as withdrawn. Hence, he has to bc non-suitcd on the ground of suppression of material facts as he has not approached [he Court with clean hands and also abused the process of larx,. 12 For the reasons aforementionecl, the rVr-it I)r:tition is dismissed. No cost s l3 closed Miscellaneous Applications, if arr_r., shall stand SD/. ALLIKARJUNA RAO ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// 'l . Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for Hyderabad. [OUT] One CC to SRI tt/OHD ASHFAQ, Advocate IOPUC] one cc to SIvIT AARIFA ll\ilRAN KHAN, Advocate (oPUC) One CC to SRI ABU AKRAM, Advocate (OPUC) Two CD Copies To 2 3 4 q SA BSR SECTION OFFICER tate of Telangana at I )n 1 0 sEP 2[?5 !" -/ HIGH COURT DATED:1 910812025 ORDER WP.No.25329 of 2023 DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS,