M BIKSHAPATHI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Counsel for the appellant had impugned the order of the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition, inter alia, holding that the dispute relates to a wakf property and the petitioner-appellant is at liberty to approach the Wakf Tribunal as envisaged under Section 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995. The learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the land in dispute was traced by the appellant as a wakf property. He filed an application for leasing of the said property in his favour which was not considered by the Wakf Board but the same was leased out to the respondent No.3 herein. The appellant preferred an appeal to the Minister, who granted an ex parte stay order and later vacated the same without granting the appellant an opportunity of hearing. The said order was challenged in the writ petition.

(2.) To bring the dispute to an end and not to keep alive is the avowed object of justice in order to determine the dispute between the parties, though the writ petition was filed against an interim order only, ends of justice will be squarely met, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the question raised. If the matter is finally determined as it raises a pure question of law only.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the Wakf Tribunal has got only the jurisdiction to determine the dispute relating to the nature of the wakf under Section 6 of the Wakf Ad, 1995, which runs thus: