Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 28177 (AP)

Y.Malakondaiah v. The Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board, rep. by its

WP/40120/2016 · 2025-02-13

Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010401452016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] THURSDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 40120/2016 Between: Y.malakondaiah ...PETITIONER AND The Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board Rep By Its and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M CHALAPATHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 2. SHAIK KHAJA BASHA The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.40120 OF 2016 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following relief:- “to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1, 2 in trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land to an extent of Ac.1.20 cents in Sy.No.1598/8 of Anandapuram village, Kandukur Mandal, Prakasam District by initiating the action u/S 51 of the Waqf Act, 1995 that after a long lapse of 37 years from the date of assignment made by the 3rd respondent infavour of the petitioner as long back as on 30.3.1979 as being illegal, arbitrary and is in violation of principles of natural justice and fair play apart from being in violation of established judicial precedents and in flagrant disregard to law and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the aforesaid land and pass such other order or orders...” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1.20 cents situated in Sy.No.1598/8 of Anandapuram village, Kandukur Mandal, Prakasam District having acquired the same by way of assignment vide Dis No.1558/88, dated 30.03.1979. Since then, the petitioner has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property without any interference or hinderance from any quarter. Later, the petitioner herein was also issued pattadar pass book and title deed in his favour. While things stood thus, respondent No.1 issued a notice dated 01.08.2016 alleging that the land in Sy.No.1598, 1063 of Anandapuram village is a wakf property and the same is attached to a Mosque situated at Kankur under Section 51 of the Wakf Act, 1995. Further, directed the petitioner to submit his explanation within 15 days why action under section 52 of the Act shall not be initiated. Later, another notice was also issued to the petitioner along with some similarly situated persons in respect of the subject property. While so, taking advantage of notices issued to the petitioner, the respondents are trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein filed the present writ petition. 4. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents submits that in the event if the respondents try to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property of the petitioner, the respondents will follow due procedure as contemplated under the law. 5. Having regard to the submissions made by both the learned counsel and on perusal of the material placed on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present Writ Petition can be disposed of, directing the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property of the petitioner, without following due process of law. 6. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. _________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 13.02.2025 BSP 52 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.40120 of 2016 13.02.2025 BSP