Telangana High Court
CRP/6282/2009 of P.Narayana Reddy Vs The Shahi Mosque, Chennur on 29 December 2009
MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.6282 of 2009 ORDER: Respondents filed O.S.No.175 of 2000 before the A.P. Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad, against the petitioner, for recovery of possession of the agricultural land. The suit was decreed on 27-06-2003. Petitioner filed C.R.P.No.5155 of
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDYC.R.P.No.6282 of 2009
Respondents filed O.S.No.175 of 2000 before the A.P. WakfTribunal, Hyderabad, against the petitioner, for recovery of possessionof the agricultural land. The suit was decreed on 27-06-2003. Petitioner filed C.R.P.No.5155 of 2003 against thedecree. This Court disposed of the C.R.P. on 27-11-2007, upholdingthe decree of eviction, however, granting six months time to thepetitioner, to vacate the land, on condition that he shall pay the entirelease amount and damages. Since the petitioner did not vacate theproperty within the time stipulated by this Court, the respondents filed E.P.No.40 of 2008 before the Court of PrincipalDistrict Judge, Kadapa, for execution of the decree. They have alsofiled E.A.No.58 of 2009 with a prayer to direct the Field Assistant todeliver the possession of the property, along with the standing crop. The petitioner opposed the application. The Executing Court allowedthe E.P. through order dated 25-11-2009. Hence, this C.R.P.
Sri K. Sudharshan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitionersubmits that the present management of the mosque is willing tocontinue the petitioner as tenant, and in that view of the matter, there isno basis for the execution proceedings.
The order of eviction passed against the petitioner became finalwith the dismissal of the C.R.P., by this Court in 2007. The petitionerwas granted six months time to vacate the land. In case there existedany circumstances, that warranted the extension of time, the petitionerought to have approached this Court by filing an application, for thesame. Once the order of eviction has become final, and the time stipulated by this Court has elapsed, there is no option left to theExecuting Court, except to direct eviction of the petitioner.
There are no merits in the writ petition, and it is accordinglydismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Dt.29-12-2009.
KO
________________________
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.