Patna High CourtCWJC/10316/2013disposed

Md. Azad Ansari @ Azad And ORS v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2015-07-27Mr. Justice Samarendra Pratap Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10316 of 2013 ======================================================

1. MD. AZAD ANSARI @ AZAD

2. MD. MANZAR ANSARI ALIAS MANZAR

3. MD. ASGHAR ANSARI @ ASGHAR

4. MD. AZHAR ANSARI @ AZHAR

5. MD ASAD ANSARI @ ASAD

6. MD AWAIS ANSARI @ AWAIS

7. MD SAMI AHMAD, ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PANCHBIR POLICE STATION SAHEBPUR KAMAL DISTRICT BEGUSARAI. .... Petitioners

Versus

1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MINORITY WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR

2. CHAUDHARY MD. KAMRAN ALIAS BABLOO

3. BIHAR STASTE SUNNI WAKF BOARD, HAJ BHAWAN, PATNA .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shabbir Ahmad, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Gautam Bose, AAG 8 Mr. Rashid Ijhar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH ORAL ORDER 27-07-2015 The petitioners have challenged order dated 5.7.2011, passed in Titie suit no. 1 of 2011 by the Presiding officer, Bihar Wakq Tribunal, Patna restraining alienating, dispossessing or changing the nature of the suit property.

The case of the defendant, in the written statement, was that the land in question is not a Wakf property and the same was wrongly included in the list of Wakf property by the dedicator Chaudhary Amzad Hussain who had not right, title and interest over the suit land. It would appear from the impugned order that the property is registered as Wakf property in the Wakf Board. Learned counsel submits that merely on the

Patna High Court CWJC No.10316 of 2013 (3) dt.27-07-2015 basis that it is registered as Wakf property, it cannot be said with all certainty that the property is a Wakf property. The aforesaid matter is itself a subject matter of the Title suit no. 1 of 2011. The impugned order restraining the defendant petitioner passed in the year 2011, whereas the writ petition has been filed in 2013. I do not find any reason to interfere in the matter.

The writ petition is disposed of with observation that the hearing of aforesaid title suit be expedited and disposed of preferably within a period of six months.

(Samarendra Pratap Singh, J) Shashi.