WRIT PETITION 18515 of 2014 on 10 June 1987

1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal, secretaryMinorities Department Secretariat, Hyderabad.^^Minorities Department Secretariat, Hyderabad.^^

2. The A.P. State WaqfBoard,.Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer A PS 00^^ Building, 0pp. Public Gardens, Nampally Road,[Hyderabad][ -]S 00^^ Building, 0pp. Public Gardens, Nampally Road,[Hyderabad][ -]

3. Jamath-E-Mujawaars of Dargah-Esharief Hazarath GaleebShaheed,Shaheed,Bhavanipuram, Rep.by its secretary Ibrahim.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of India praying that inthe circurnstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Courtmaybe pleased to issue writ, order or direction preferably a writ in the nature ofWrit of Mandamus declaring the action of therespondentsin trying todisposes the petitioner from his land to theextent of Ac 0.26 centsinSY.No.600GollapudiGrampanchayat,IbrahimpatnamMandal,Vijayawada, Krishna District without havingany right and without followinganylawasillegal,arbitrary andviolationjofArt.14and21of theConstitutionofIndia andconsequently directthe respondentsnottodispossess the petitioners from the land extent of Ac 0.26 cents in SY.No.

600GollapudiGrampanchayat,IbrahimpatnamMandal,VijayawadaKrishna District.

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2014fWPM'P. NO: 232Q4 OF 2014^

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the[circumstances]stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Courtmay be pleased direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitionerfromthelandextentofAc0.26centsinSY.No.600GollapudiGrampanchayat,IbrahimpatnamMandal,Vijayawada,KrishnaDistrictpending disposal of the main writ petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SURESH KUMAR POTTURI

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARECounsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI M.R. MOHAMMAD[IRFAN](SC FOR AP WAQF BOARD)

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI RAVI KUMAR TOLETYThe Court made the following: ORDER

H-i

r

APHC010568332014IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHAT AMARAVATI(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3329]

IVIONDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARYTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENTTHEhonourable SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

WRIT PETITION NO: 18515/2014

Between:

Ram Mohan Rao

...PETITIONER

Parvathaneni

AND

ement Of Andhra Pradesh Rep By Its...RESPONDENT(S)

The GovernPrincipal and Others

for the Petitioner:

Counsel

TSURES*^KUMAR POTTURI

for the Respondent(S):

Counsel

IVIOHAMMAD IRFAN(SC FOR AP WAQF BOARD )

1. M.R-

2. RAVITOLETY

rOR social welfare (AP)

3. GP

^plFULLAH (SC FOR AP WAQF BOARD)

4. S

the honourable SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

WRIT PETITION NO: 18515/2014

This Court made the following

nRPER:

1. This writ petitionis filed under Article 226 of the[Constitution]of India seeking the following relief:

“to issue writ order or direction preferably a Writ[in][ the][ nature][ of][ Writ]of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents[in][ trying][ to]dispossess the petitioner from his land to the extent[of][ Ac][ 0.26 cents]inSy.No.600, Gollapudi Grampanchayat Ibrahimpatnam Mandal,Vijayawada, Krishna District without having any right[and][ without]following any law as illegal, arbitrary and violation[of][ Articles][ 14][ and]21oftheConstitutionofIndiaandconsequentlydirecttherespondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the[land][ extent][ of]Ac0.26centsinSy.No.600,GollapudiGrampanchayatIbrahimpatnam Mandal, Vijayawada, Krishna District[and][ to][ pass...]

2. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner,[without][ touching]the merits of the case, requested this Court to issue[a][ direction][ to][ the]respondents not to dispossess thepetitioner fromhisland,withoutfollowing due process of law.

3. Learned Standing Counselfor Waqf Boardadmittedthatthepetitioneriscontinuingthepossessionofsubjectlandandthe respondents authorities would follow due process of law and requested topass appropriate orders.

4. The petitioner is in lawful possession of the land admeasuring to anextentof Ac.0.26centsin Sy.No.600of Gollapudi Grampanchayat,Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Vijayawada, Krishna District and constructed athatched house.In fact the subject land belongs to 3'^^ Respondent whichis a Waqf Institution.Initially the 3'^^ Respondent entered into a lease withone Anumolu Ravi Kumar and the said Anumolu Ravi Kumar depositedan amount of Rs.28,600/- on 10.06.1987 as directed by the Secretary ofA.P. Waqf Board, Hyderabad and thus he acquired right of purchaseoverthe abovesaidproperty fromthe2""'Respondent.Laterthe3^^^Respondent and the said Anumolu Ravi Kumar agreed to transfer theleasehold rights in favour of the Petitioner and as such the Petitioner hasbeen in continuous possession of the schedule property[as][ one][ of][ the]extentof Ac.0.26centsin Sy.No.600of Gollapudi Grampanchayat,Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Vijayawada, Krishna District and constructed athatched house.In fact the subject land belongs to 3'^^ Respondent whichis a Waqf Institution.Initially the 3'^^ Respondent entered into a lease withone Anumolu Ravi Kumar and the said Anumolu Ravi Kumar depositedan amount of Rs.28,600/- on 10.06.1987 as directed by the Secretary ofA.P. Waqf Board, Hyderabad and thus he acquired right of purchaseoverthe abovesaidproperty fromthe2""'Respondent.Laterthe3^^^Respondent and the said Anumolu Ravi Kumar agreed to transfer theleasehold rights in favour of the Petitioner and as such the Petitioner hasbeen in continuous possession of the schedule property[as][ one][ of][ the]tenant.The Petitioner has been paying rents to theO'"* respondentinstitution regularly without any fail.institution regularly without any fail.

5. While matter stood thus, the3'"' Respondent institution hasfiledO.S.No. 1238/2011 on the file ofI Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada bycontending that the Petitioner and some others without having any rightover the land tried to encroach the suit schedule property by taking theadvantage of petitioner’s residence in vicinity thereof. The said suit was r

decreed withanobservation that thecivil court has no jurisdictiontoof the matter and only the tribunal is having jurisdiction[to][ decide]disposethe matter as the suit schedule property belongs to[Waqf][ and][ is][ governed]the Waqf Act, 1995.Thus the attempt of the 3'"^ respondenttounderthe Petitioner and others from the land has been failed.dispossess gAfter dismissal of the above suit, taking clue fromthe observationsCourt, the 3'^^ Respondent pressurized the 2"^^ Respondent[due][ to]of thethe staff of 2"^ Respondent are coming to Petitioner’s[place][ and]whichdirectingthePetitioner to vacate the subject property. Hence the[Writ]Petition.

It issettled proposition of law that when the petitioneris in settled7.andenjoyment of the property, the respondents are notpossessioninterfere with the possession and enjoyment of the[petitioner]entitled toactionof the respondents would amounttosuchhighhandedandviolating constitutional right guaranteed underdepriving the petitioner’sof India, besides violation of Article 14 ofArticle 300-A of the ConstitutionmomentthatthisConstitutionofIndia.Evenassumingforathepgtitioner's possession is illegal, still, the petitioneris required to beafforded an opportunity before taking appropriate actionand in view ofRame Gowda (dead) by L.Rs. v.law declared by the Apex Court inthe 'M.Varadappa Naidu (Dead) by LRswhen the petitioner is in settledpossession and enjoyment of the property, he cannot be dispossessed bythe 2"“ and 3'“ Respondents by issuing any notices by way of summaryproceedings, without following due process of law. In fact, the claim of theRespondents is that subject property is the Waqf Property.Onceitisclassified as Waqf property the Waqf Act, 1995 contemplates dueproceduretobefollowed.As per Section 54(1)of the Actanyencroachments were found against Waqfproperty, the same can beremoved by the 2"" Respondent by initiating eviction proceedings U/s54(3)of the Act before the Waqf Tribunalonly.Therefore,therespondents are directed not to dispossess thepetitioner from the subjectproperty, except by due process of law.

8. With the above direction, thewrit petition is disposed of, with theconsent of both the counsel. No costs.writ petition is disposed of, with theconsent of both the counsel. No costs.

As a sequel, interlocutory applicationsclosed. if any pending, shall stand 2004(1) see 769

Sd/- U SRI DEVIASSISTANT REGISTRARnfiVuSECTION OFFICER

//TRUE COPY//

To.

1. The Principal, Secretary Minorities Department, Government of AndhraPradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur[District.]Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur[District.]

2. The Chief Executive Officer; A.P. State Waqf Board, Vijayawada.

3. One CC to Sri Suresh Kumar Potturi, Advocate [OPUC]

4. One CC to Sri M.R. Mohammad irfan, (SC for AP Waqf Board) [OPUC]

5. One CC to Sri Ravi Kumar Tolety, Advocate [OPUC]

Pradesh.6- Tw^CCs to GP for Social Welfare, High Court of Andhra

7. One CC to Sri S. Arifullah, SC for Waqf Board (OPUC)

8. Three C.D. Copies

high court

DATED;20/01/2025

ORDER

WP.No.18515 of 2014

disposing the W PWITHOUTCOSTS