The Telangana State Waqf Board is facing criticism over its handling of nearly 5,500 property-related legal disputes, with community representatives raising concerns about legal expertise, case monitoring, Board meetings and possible conflicts of interest.
The concerns were voiced by Syed Ali Jaffery, a High Court advocate and community leader, who questioned allegations that advocates representing the Waqf Board were also handling cases for parties involved in Waqf land disputes through their juniors and associates. He said the matter required scrutiny to determine whether potential conflicts of interest were affecting the Board’s position.
Ifteqar Hussaini, a Waqf activist, said the Board’s shortage of legal experts was weakening its ability to defend Waqf properties in court. According to him, inadequate legal preparation and a lack of specialised expertise were affecting important cases involving disputed properties.
The latest available consolidated report cited in the report shows that 3,715 cases involving the Board are pending before the Telangana High Court, 1,549 are before the Waqf Tribunal and 230 are pending in other civil and revenue courts. The figures indicate that most of the Board’s litigation is concentrated in the High Court and the Waqf Tribunal.
Hyderabad accounts for the largest share of the disputes, with 1,626 cases, followed by Rangareddy with 1,315 and Medak with 299. The distribution places a substantial part of the Board’s property-related legal workload in and around Hyderabad, where land records, ownership claims and development pressures often intersect.
BRS Minority Cell leader Abdul Muqeed Chanda said the Board was not holding regular meetings, leaving litigation and property-protection issues without adequate deliberation. He called for regular meetings to review pending cases, identify legal shortcomings and formulate a coordinated strategy for defending Waqf properties.
The concerns come amid continuing disputes over Waqf lands, alleged encroachments and questionable documentation used in property transactions. The Board has also faced criticism over the functioning of its legal and administrative departments and coordination between officials and standing counsel.
Community representatives have called for a systematic review of pending cases, improved distribution of work among advocates and stronger monitoring of court proceedings. They have also sought transparent procedures to address potential conflicts of interest, establish accountability for lapses in legal representation and ensure that the Board’s interests are adequately defended in ongoing litigation.
