WP/25085/2026 of Shaik Mohammad Rafi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 2 September 2026

1. Shaik Mohammad Ra Former Counsellor of M Himayatul Islam, Rio. Mangalagiri, Guntur Distr

1. The State of Andhra Welfare Department, S Pradesh-522503.

2. The Mangalagiri and T District, Andhra Pradesh-

3. The Survey Commiss District, Andhra Pradesh-

4. The Andhra Prades Executive Officer, Vijayaw

5. The District Collector,

6. Shaik Akram, S/o. not Andhra Pradesh State Pradesh-520001. E HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Y, THE 3rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 202 PRESENT ABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMAL T PETITION NO: 25085 OF 2026 afi,, S/o. Saidu Saheb, Aged about Mangalagiri Municipality, Life Member 7-506C/12, Saidu Saheb Street, rict, Andhra Pradesh-522503. AND Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secre Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur D Tadepalli Municipal Corporation, Mang -522503. Represented by its Commis sioner of Waqf, Andhra Pradesh, Ta -522501. sh State Waqf Board, Represented wada, NTR District, Andhra Pradesh-5 , Guntur District, Guntur, Andhra Prad t known to the petitioner, aged major Waqf Board, Vijayawada, NTR D DESH

LAPATI 50 years, Occ. r of Anjuman-E- Ward No. 29, ...Petitioner etary, Minorities District, Andhra galagiri, Guntur ssioner. depalli, Guntur d by its Chief 520001. desh- 522001. , Occ. Director, District, Andhra

7. The AnjumanEHimayatul Islam, Mangalagiri Town, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh-522503. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the Respondents, particularly Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 5, in attempting to acquire the Waqf property in Sy. No. 273/362 of Nidamarru, Mangalagiri Mandal and Town, Guntur District, without following the procedure under the Land Acquisition Act, 2013, and without following the provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995, and without payment of compensation, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and void consequentially direct the respondents to follow the due procedure under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and the Waqf Act, 1995, if any acquisition is to be made, and to pay just and fair compensation to the 7th respondent Waqf institution in accordance with law without there being any deviation under due influence of the 6th respondent herein IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 direct the respondents to follow the due procedure under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and the Waqf Act, 1995, if any acquisition is to be made, and to pay just and fair compensation to the 7" respondent Waqf institution in accordance with law without there being any deviation under due influence of the 6th respondent herein pending disposal of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: V SAI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents: A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE Counsel for the Respondents: SHAIK KHAJA BASHA

The Court made the following order:

The grievance of the petitioner is that without following the procedure under the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 and without following the provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995, respondent Nos.2 and 5 are attempting to acquire the Waqf property in Survey No.273/3B2 of Nidamarru, Mangalagiri Mandal and Town, Guntur District.

2. Heard Sri Shashinag Naidu, learned counsel, representing Sri V.Sai Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri ASC Bose, learned standing counsel for Municipal Corporation, Sri Shaik Khaja Basha, learned standing counsel for Waqf Board, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Welfare Department and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, contended that the Government of Andhra Pradesh, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 5 of the Waqf Act, 1995, issued G.O.Ms.No.4, Minorities Welfare (IDM) Department, dated 28.05.2020, whereby a list of 15 attached Waqf properties and 10 un-notified Waqf properties situated in Mangalagiri Mandal and Municipality was published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette. The property in Survey No.272/3B2 is part of the Annexure to the said G.O.Ms.No.4, dated 28.05.2020, wherein the institution, namely, ‘Anjuman-E-Himayatulla, Islamia Office’, is mentioned. The total extent of the Waqf property is Ac.0.11 cents, and the annual gross income derived from the shops existing thereon is

Rs.5,40,000/-. He further submitted that respondent No.2 has been making persistent efforts to acquire an extent of Ac.0.06 cents out of the total extent of Ac.0.11 cents of the said Waqf property for the purpose of widening the Nidamarru Road. The proposed acquisition is being undertaken without following the procedure prescribed under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, as well as the procedure prescribed under the Waqf Act, 1995, for alienation or transfer of Waqf properties. The petitioner, being a life member of the Anjuman-E-Himayatul Islam, claims to have every right to protect the subject property. Hence, prayed to direct the respondent authorities to follow the due procedure prescribed under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and the Waqf Act, 1995.

4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the Municipalities, while placing on record the letter dated 03.09.2026 addressed by the Mangalagiri-Tadepalli Municipal Corporation, submitted that the office of the Commissioner had conducted meetings on two occasions with the affected property owners, and that the petitioner was also invited to the said meetings. The representatives of the petitioner had attended the meetings. Subsequently, on 25.08.2026, a notice under Section 146 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1955, was issued to the petitioner and other affected property owners along the road, requesting them to extend cooperation to the Mangalagiri-Tadepalli Municipal Corporation and hand over the portion of the site affected by the proposed road widening, in accordance with the provisions of Section 146 of the A.P. Municipal Corporations Act, 1955, by submitting their consent and attested copies of the ownership documents for taking further action. He further submitted that compensation towards the affected portion of the existing structure would be paid in cash based on the valuation/estimate prepared by the Roads & Buildings Department. In the event any of the affected property owners along the road is unwilling to give consent, the respondent authorities would follow the procedure contemplated under Section 147 of the A.P. Municipal Corporations Act, 1955, and initiate land acquisition proceedings in accordance with law. He specifically submitted that the respondent authorities would not take possession of any property by force without the consent of the concerned property owner. Hence, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner disputed the alleged service of notice.

6. Perused the material placed on record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

7. The subject property is claimed by the petitioner to be a Waqf property covered by G.O.Ms.No.4, Minorities Welfare (IDM) Department, dated 28.05.2020. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are seeking to utilize a portion of the alleged Waqf property for the purpose of widening the Nidamarru Road without following the procedure prescribed by law. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the

Municipal Corporation has submitted that the respondent authorities would initiate appropriate proceedings under Section 147 of the APMC Act and would not dispossess or take possession of the property by force.

8. Taking the submissions of learned counsel for the parties into consideration, since the respondent authorities have intention to follow due process of law, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, is inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, at the admission stage itself, by passing the following order: “Respondent authorities concerned are directed to follow due process of law before acquiring the subject property in Survey No.273/3B2 of Nidamarru, Mangalagiri Mandal and Town, Guntur District.”

9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any in the Writ Petition, shall also stand closed.

___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

03.09.2026 MP

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

WRIT PETITION NO.25085 of 2026 03.09.2026

MP