logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 TSHC 126 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court for the State of Telangana
Case No : C.C.C.A. No. 54 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
Parties : Mohd Abdul Jaleel (Alias Zakir), Hyderabad Versus Mohd Nazeer Ali, Hyderabad & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Mirza Nisar Ahmed Baig, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ashok Reddy Kanathala, Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 25-03-2026
Head Note :-
Subject
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Wakf Act, 1995

2. Catch Words:
- Wakf property
- Maintainability
- Remedy
- Wakf Tribunal

3. Summary:
The appellant challenged the dismissal of his application (E.A. No. 64 of 2023) on the ground that the civil court lacked jurisdiction over wakf property. The trial court held that disputes concerning wakf property must be pursued before the Wakf Tribunal under the Wakf Act, 1995, rendering the claim petition non‑maintainable. The appellant filed a C.R.P. which he later withdrew, and subsequently raised the present appeal. The appellate court found no error in the trial court’s reasoning and noted that the appellant has a specific remedy before the Wakf Tribunal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, but the appellant was granted liberty to approach the Wakf Tribunal by 08‑04‑2026, with the respondents agreeing not to demolish the structure pending such filing. No costs were awarded.

4. Conclusion:
Appeal Dismissed
Judgment :-

1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 03.11.2025 in E.A. No. 64 of 2023 in E.P. No. 653 of 2022 passed by the learned XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. Heard Mr. Mirza Nisar Ahmed Baig, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ashok Reddy Kanathala, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record.

3. After hearing the arguments of both the learned counsel at length, this Court came to know that there is E.A. No. 64 of 2023 in E.P. No. 653 of 2022 filed by the appellant. The said E.A. is dismissed by observing as follows:

               “…when the property in question is found to be wakf property and further confirmed by the higher Courts, the only remedy available to the claim petitioner is to agitate his claim before the Wakf Tribunal but not before the Civil Court. Accordingly, the Claim Petition is not maintainable. The claim petitioner has a remedy to agitate his claim before the Wakf Tribunal in terms of the provisions under Wakf Act, 1995.”

               (verbatim reproduced)

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is once the trial Court confirmed that there is no remedy to approach the Civil Court, the Court should not dismiss my application by returning the papers. However, the trial Court dismissed the E.A. No. 64 of 2023. Against the dismissal of the said E.A., the C.R.P. No. 977 of 2008 was filed and the said C.R.P. was dismissed as withdrawn by the appellant without any liberty and after withdrawal of the C.R.P., the present C.C.C.A. is filed.

5. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the learned XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in E.A. No. 64 of 2023 in E.P. No. 653 of 2022 and the appeal is liable to be dismissed as there is remedy available to the appellant to approach the Wakf Tribunal.

6. Accordingly, the C.C.C.A. is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the appellant to approach the Wakf Tribunal on or before 08.04.2026. The respondents undertake that they won’t demolish the existing structure till filing of the application before the Wakf Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal