The Telangana State Waqf Board, v. Majid Hussain Khan
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA,GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-02-17. The Telangana State Waqf Board, v. Majid Hussain Khan. Read the judgment and case details on...
Judgment text
[ 34s1 I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR lA. No. 2 OF 2025 IN'AND WRIT APPEAL NO: 1380 OF 2025 I Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent prebrred against the order datd 2110812023 in W. P. No. 19892 of 2023 and pass on the file of the High Court. Between: 1. The Telangana State Waqf Board, Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer, Nampally Road, Hyderabad. 2. The'Chii:f ExecutiVe Officer, Telangana State Waqf Board, Nampally Road, Hyderabad ... APPELLANTSTRESPONDENTS No. 2 & 3 AND 1 . Malid Hussain Khan, S/o. Late Abid Hussain Khan, Aged about 53 Business Oci. Business, R/o H. No. 'l 7-9 -12812, Kurmaguda, Saidabad, Hyderabad - 2. Sajid Hussain Khan, S/o Late Abid Hussain Khan, Aged about 55 years, Occ. Bu3iness, R/o H. No. 1 7-9 - 1 21l2,Kurmaguda, Saidabad, Hyderabad 3.
Javid Hussain Khan, s/o Late Abid Hussain Khan' Agred about 57 years, occ' Business, R/o H. No. 1 7-9 - 12812,Kurmaguda, Saidabad, Hyderabad 94. 4. Arshad Hussain Khan, S/o Late Abid Hussain Khan, Aged about 51 years' Occ. Business, R/o H. No. 17- 9- 12812, Kurmaguda, Saidabad, Hyderabad ... RESPONDENTS'WRIT PETITIONERS 5. The Surveyor, Telangana State Waqf Board, Medchaltlalkalgiri District 6. The Tahsildar, Shamirpet Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District 7. The Collector, Medchal Malkaigiri District B. The State of Telangana, Represented by its Secretary, (Minority Welfare Department), Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 9. The lnspector Auditor Waqf. Medchal Malkajgiri District (Respondents No. 5,B and I are not necessary partbs to the present Appeal) ... RESPONDENTS .
: ::l _: lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased condone the delay of 284 days in filing the WR|T AppEAL No. of 2025. IA NO: 3 OF 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 suspend the order passed by the learner single judge in W. p. No. 1g992 ol 2023 dated 21-08-2023 Pending disposal of the main writ appeal. Counsel for the Appellants: SRt MOHD tSMAtL, SC FOR TSWB Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 TO 4: SRI KATIKA RAVINDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. S TO 9: - The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT I HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TEI"AI{GAITA AT I{YDERABAI) THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON'BLE WSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KI,UAR IA ! to. 2 OF 2025 IN/AND W. A. Ito. 13 8() ol 2U25 DATE;zl7. 02.
2026 Betreen: The Telangana State Waqf Board, Represented by its Chief Executive Oflicer, Nampally Road, Hyderabad and another. ... petitioners/ aPPellants And Majid Hussain Khan and 8 others. ... Respondents coMMON JUDGMEI{T: (Per Honbte Sri Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar) 1. Heard Mr. Mohammed Ismail, learned Standing Counsel for the Telangana State Waqf Board apPearing for the petitioners/appellants and Mr. Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4' 2. I. A. No. 2 of 2025 is filed seeking to condone the delay of 284 days in hling W. A. No. 138O of 2025. 3. The reasons for the delay of 284 days in frling the Writ Appeal, as stated in paragraph 4 of the affidavit filed in support of the application, are that the Writ Appeal was initially presented on O2. O7. 2O24 but was returned by the Registry for compliance; however, the bundle was not collected from the concerned Section by the learned Standing Counsel.
Consequently, there was a delay in tracing the returned records, which prevented the matter from being pursued in the ordinar5r course. It is further submitted that, owing to the hling of fresh cases and heavy workload, the file could not be traced in time, resulting in the present delay. 4. l. earned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. l to 4 filed a counter-affidavit objecting to the condoning of delay. It is stated therein that each day's delay must be explained and that the Government departments cannot take advantage of their own inaction and plead for condonation of delay on the ground of administrative inefliciency and the reasons pleaded by the petitioners/appellants do not constitute "suffrcient cause" and clearly demonstrate gross negligence, total inaction and lack of due diligence on their part and accordingly, prays for dismissal of the IA as well as the Writ Appeal. 5.
This Court has carefully considered the averments made in the aJhdavit filed in support of the application seeking filed by the condonation of delay, as well as the counter-afftdavit respondents opposing the same. application for 6. It is well settled that while considering an condonation of delay, the Court must examine whether . :: . . -' t',. , ,. '-:- and whether the explanation . '. ,- ". ,,:sumcient cause'has been shown .. ;; l ,:. i:- . , . ,:. ' ''- . ':. . :.. i. :l,r:rri. 1:, , _,. . 6ffered is bona and acceptable. The expression 'suffrcient fide . . . ,,. i,l;4;r+r. ii+! ,,ria: . - so as to advance cause, should receive a liberal construction justice; same cannot be extended to substantial however, the of diligence. cover negligence, inaction or lack land Acqulsltlon 7.
In the case of Basoutanu/ tt/s- Speclal Court held that "suffrcient cause' Offtert, the Honble Supreme means ttrat the party should not have acted in a negligent its part view of manner or ttrere was a want of bona fide on in or it cannot be alleged the facts and circumstances of a case "remained inactive". that the part5r has "not acted diligent$ or applicant must satisff the It was further held therein that the from Court he was prevented that by any "suffrcient cause' is prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation allow the application for furnished, the Court should not in case a party is { condonation of delay. It was a-lso held that part in want of bona on his the found to be negligent, or for fide t at 1zor3y t+ scc facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. 8. In the present case, the delay of 2g4 days is undoubtedly substantial.
The reasons assigned disclose that the returned bundle was not collected in time from the concerned Section and that the file could not be traced due to administrative reasons and heavy workload. The affidavit does not indicate any specific steps taken to trace the file within a reasonabre time, nor does it furnish particulars explaining the delay on a day_to_day basis. Therefore, this court is of the considered view that there was no adequate and suflicient explanation by the petitioners to condone such inordinate delay in frling the Writ Appeat. 9. Accordingly, I. A. No. 2 of 2O2S is dismissed, and consequently, W. A. No. 1380 of 2025, along with all connected applications, is a,lso dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ,4 SD/-MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR \ //TRUE COPYII CTION OFFICER To 1 One CC to SRI MOHD lSMAlL, .
" ro* TSWB TOPUJ 2 One CC to SRI KATIKA RAVINDER REDDY Advocatel IoPUCI J Two CD Copies I'SK I}S a I J HIGH COURT DATED: 1 7 102t2O26 COMMON JUDGMENT F-lHE Si,rr;. lA. No. 2 OF 2025 ( IN/AND o t' o , WA. No. 1380 of 2025 rl8 2 3 2{l2fi ! I * DISMISSING THE IA AND WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Archive: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.