WP/37867/2012 of Aluri Gandhi, Vs A.P. State Wakf Board, on 31 December 2012

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDYWRIT PETITION No.37867 of 2012ORDER:

The petitioners state that an extent of Ac.7.04guntas of land in Survey Nos.264 and 265 of KhanapurHaveli Village, Khammam District was owned by theirancestors. According to them, the A.P.Wakf Board, 1[st]respondent herein published a notification in the year1990 treating the said property as belonging to Wakfinstitution by name Dargah Hzt. Moula Taleem Mastan(RH), 2[nd] respondent herein and that they are notaware of it. On 28.04.2001, the 1[st] respondent passedorders of eviction in respect of that land against 43persons under Section 54 of the Wakf Act (for short ‘theAct’). A requisition was also given on 26.10.2003 to theRevenue Divisional Officer, for implementation of theorder of eviction. However, the matter is said to haverested at that. The petitioner states that the land iscovered by constructions and only a small areaearmarked for common use is remaining vacant.

The 1[st] respondent passed an order dated12.09.2012 directing regularisation of theencroachments by 10 individuals. Challenging thesame, the petitioners filed W.P.No.33206 of 2012. Thesaid writ petition was disposed of, leaving it open to thepetitioners to avail the common law remedies anddirecting that the memo dated 12.09.2012 shall remainsuspended for a period of three months. A Writ Appealfiled against the said order by certain individuals, inwhose favour the order of regularisation was passed, was dismissed.

The 1[st] respondent issued a Memo, dated15.11.2012 to the District Collector, Khammam, 3[rd]respondent herein with a request to instruct theRevenue Divisional Officer to take action under Section55 of the Act to remove the encroachments and deliverthe possession of the land to the Inspector-Auditor ofthe Wakf Board. Reference was made to an orderpassed by this Court in W.P.No.10173 of 2001. TheSaid memo is challenged in this writ petition.

The petitioners contend that once this Courtenabled them to file a suit and steps have already beeninitiated, there was absolutely no justification for the 1[st]respondent in issuing the impugned Memo.

Separate counter affidavits are filed byrespondents 1 and 2. It is stated that apart fromthe writ petition referred to above, in W.P.No.2591 of2012, a learned Single Judge of this Court directed theWakf Board to take necessary steps to protect the landand it is in this context that the impugned Memo wasissued.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners andlearned counsel for the respondents.

The land of Ac.7.04 guntas of land in SurveyNos.264 and 265 of Khanapur Haveli Village was thesubject matter of several proceedings. It all started withthe publication of a notification in the year 1990 by theWakf Board. However, the consequential steps werenot taken and the land came to be covered by theconstructions. It was only on 28.04.2001 that the Wakf Board passed an order of eviction of the petitioners. Aletter for implementation thereof was addressed twoand half years thereafter i.e., on 26.10.2003. Even thatdid not yield any results. The 1[st] respondent, whichpassed the order of eviction in the year 2001, started itssteps in the opposite direction in the year 2012. On12.09.2012, it passed an order directing regularisationof encroachments by certain individuals. With that, theorder, dated 28.04.2001 stands nullified.

Be that as it may, while the petitioners feltaggrieved by the order of regularisation dated12.09.2012, the 2[nd] respondent and certain otherswanted the eviction of petitioners and others from thatland. However, the writ petitions came to be decidedseparately. The facts pleaded in one case were nottaken note of, in the other, and almost a conflictingversion came into existence.

The direction issued by this Court inW.P.No.33206 of 2012, leaving it open to the petitionersto work out their remedies holds the field as of now,since it was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, the parties are required to abide by theoutcome of the suit, that may be instituted by thepetitioners. Till such time, neither the 1[st] respondentnor the 2[nd] respondent can take any steps, particularlywhen the Memo dated 12.09.2012 was kept inabeyance for a period of three months and the 1[st]respondent has impliedly overruled its own order dated28.04.2001. As of now, no party can claim any specificrights or any definite pronouncement. Everything is in a fluid state.

Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and theimpugned Memo is set aside. It is directed that anyparty who claims rights vis-a-vis the land shall eitherindependently approach the Wakf Tribunal to establishtheir rights or put forward their claims in the suit thatmay be filed by the petitioners.

The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition shall also stand disposed of. There shall be noorder as to costs.

____________________

L. NARASIMHA

REDDY, J.

Date: 31.12.2012JSU

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

JSU

WRIT PETITION No.37867 of 2012

Date: 31.12.2012