Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Mir Khader Ali vs Quazi Mohd. Abdul Basith Qureshi & Ors. on 8 September, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1999(2)ALD570, 1999(3)ALT82
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Umesh Chandra Banerjee
ORDER Umesh Chandra Banerjee, C.J.
1. A short but interesting question of law falls for consideration in these appeals viz., whether the cost of Khazi is a hereditary post or not.
2. Mulla in his treatise on Mohammaden Law stated that Mohammaden law does not regard the office of Khazi as hereditary. Claim to such right, though supported by custom, is not one that can be recognised by a civil Court. Similarly, is the decision of this Court in Citizens Welfare Organisation v, Govt. of A.P., 1989 (2) ALT 524, wherein in no uncertain terms it has been recorded that post of Khazi is not a hereditary one, and appointment to that post has to be made in pursuance of Section 2 of the Khazis Act, 1880.
3. Mr. E. Manohar, appearing in support of the appeal contended that having due regard to the provisions of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, question of Khazi being otherwise nominated by the Government, and the post being not a hereditary one, does not and cannot arise. Mr. Manohar, drew inspiration from the observations of the learned single Judge in Citizens Welfare Organisation's case, 1989 (2) ALT 524 (supra), wherein in the learned single Judge observed that "the hereditary character is contrary to the Act and is void. In view of the fact that the Act is a century old, and in view of the subsequent changes made by the Parliament, it is desirable, instead of keeping this area in a flux leading to difficulty in implementation thereof, to review and revise the Act in the light of the march of law made, and to make a fresh legislation in that regard by the Parliament". It is, however, placed on record that inspite of observations to that effect, to review and revise the Act in the light of the march of law, the Government did not feel it expedient to amend the law. Be that as it may, Section 2 of the Khazis Act, 1880 expressly left it open to the State Government that wherever any considerable number of Mohammaden residents in any local area desire that one or more Khazis should be appointed for such local area, upon consulting the principal Mohammaden residents of such local area, the State Government ought to select one or more fit persons and appoint them as Khazis for such local area. The learned single Judge while dealing with the matter has categorically recorded that since the post of Khazi has fallen vacant consequent on the death of earlier Khazi in 1981, and till today the post of Khazi has not been filled up, the State Government ought to take expeditious steps in accordance with Section 2 of the Khazis Act, 1880 for appointment of Khazis to the area in question. Having due regard to the language of Section 2 of the Khazis Act, 1880 and considering the factum that hereditary right cannot be imported, as is available under the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, we do not deem it expedient to interfere with the finding of the learned single Judge.
4. In the above view of the matter, the appeals fail, and as such, they are dismissed. It is however, made clear that the case of the appellants will also be considered along with others. No order as to costs.