IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT 5^ Ml o 1 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA ^ WRIT PETITION NO: 18515 OF 2014 AA Between: Parvathaneni Ram Mohan Rao, S/o. Subba Rao, Hindu resident of Padmaja Towers, 1®* floor, D.No 76-8/1-12 Theater, Bavanipruam Vijayawada:- aged 45 years, besides Swathi ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal, secretary Minorities Department Secretariat, Hyderabad. ^ ^ 2. The A.P. State WaqfBoard,.Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer A P S 00^^ Building, 0pp. Public Gardens, Nampally Road, Hyderabad - 3. Jamath-E-Mujawaars of Dargah-Esharief Hazarath Galeeb Bhavanipuram, Rep.by its secretary Ibrahim . Shaheed, ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circurnstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue writ, order or direction preferably a writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the disposes the petitioner from his land to the may respondents in trying to extent of Ac 0.26 cents in Ibrahimpatnam SY.No. 600 Gollapudi Grampanchayat, Vijayawada, Krishna District without having Mandal, any right and without following j of Art.14 and 21 of the any law as illegal, arbitrary and violation Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the land extent of Ac 0.26 cents in SY.No. 600 Gollapudi Grampanchayat, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Vijayawada Krishna 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 Court may be pleased direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the land extent of Ac 0.26 cents in SY.No. 600 Gollapudi Grampanchayat, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Vijayawada, Krishna District pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SURESH KUMAR POTTURI Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI M.R. MOHAMMAD IRFAN (SC FOR AP WAQF BOARD ) Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI RAVI KUMAR TOLETY The Court made the following: ORDER r 1 H-i APHC010568332014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] IVIONDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT honourable SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 18515/2014 THE Between: i Ram Mohan Rao ...PETITIONER Parvathaneni AND ement Of Andhra Pradesh Rep By Its ...RESPONDENT(S) The Govern Principal and Others for the Petitioner: KUMAR POTTURI Counsel TSURES*^ for the Respondent(S): IVIOHAMMAD IRFAN(SC FOR AP WAQF BOARD ) Counsel 1.M.R- 2. RAVI TOLETY rOR social welfare (AP) 3.GP 4.S ^plFULLAH (SC FOR AP WAQF BOARD) 2 the honourable SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 18515/2014 This Court made the following nRPER: This writ petition is 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 Sy.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 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the land extent of in Sy.No.600, Gollapudi Grampanchayat Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Vijayawada, Krishna District and to pass... 1. in 21 Ac 0.26 cents 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 the petitioner from his land, without following due process of law. 3. Learned Standing Counsel for Waqf Board admitted that the petitioner is continuing the possession of subject land and the ::3:: respondents authorities would follow due process of law and requested to pass appropriate orders. The petitioner is in lawful possession of the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.0.26 cents in Sy.No.600 of Gollapudi Grampanchayat, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Vijayawada, Krishna District and constructed a thatched house. In fact the subject land belongs to 3'^^ Respondent which is a Waqf Institution. Initially the 3'^^ Respondent entered into a lease with one Anumolu Ravi Kumar and the said Anumolu Ravi Kumar deposited an amount of Rs.28,600/- on 10.06.1987 as directed by the Secretary of A.P. Waqf Board, Hyderabad and thus he acquired right of purchase the above said property from the 2""' Respondent. Respondent and the said Anumolu Ravi Kumar agreed to transfer the leasehold rights in favour of the Petitioner and as such the Petitioner has been in continuous possession of the schedule property as one of the The Petitioner has been paying rents to the O'"* respondent institution regularly without any fail. 4. over Later the 3^^^ tenant. While matter stood thus, the 3'"' Respondent institution has filed O.S.No. 1238/2011 on the file of I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada by contending that the Petitioner and some others without having any right over the land tried to encroach the suit schedule property by taking the advantage of petitioner’s residence in vicinity thereof. The said suit was 5. r 4 observation that the civil court has no jurisdiction to of the matter and only the tribunal is having jurisdiction to decide decreed with an dispose the matter as the suit schedule property belongs to Waqf and is governed the Waqf Act, 1995. Thus the attempt of the 3'"^ respondent to under the Petitioner and others from the land has been failed. dispossess g After dismissal of the above suit, taking clue from the observations Court, the 3'^^ Respondent pressurized the 2"^^ Respondent due to the staff of 2"^ Respondent are coming to Petitioner’s place and Petitioner to vacate the subject property. Hence the Writ of the which the directing Petition. settled proposition of law that when the petitioner is in settled enjoyment of the property, the respondents are not interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner action of the respondents would amount to It is 7. and possession entitled to such highhanded and violating constitutional right guaranteed under of India, besides violation of Article 14 of moment that this depriving the petitioner’s Article 300-A of the Constitution Constitution of India. Even assuming for a the pgtitioner's possession is illegal, still, the petitioner is required to be afforded an opportunity before taking appropriate action and in view of Rame Gowda (dead) by L.Rs. v. the law declared by the Apex Court in ' M.Varadappa Naidu (Dead) by LRs when the petitioner is in settled possession and enjoyment of the property, he cannot be dispossessed by the 2"“ and 3'“ Respondents by issuing any notices by way of summary proceedings, without following due process of law. In fact, the claim of the Respondents is that subject property is the Waqf Property. Once it is classified as Waqf property the Waqf Act, 1995 contemplates due procedure to be followed. As per Section 54(1) of the Act property, the same can be removed by the 2"" Respondent by initiating eviction proceedings U/s 54(3) of the Act before the Waqf Tribunal any encroachments were found against Waqf only. Therefore, the petitioner from the subject respondents are directed not to dispossess the property, except by due process of law. 8. With the above direction, the consent of both the counsel. No costs. writ petition is disposed of, with the As a sequel, interlocutory applications if any pending, shall stand closed. 2004(1) see 769 Sd/- U SRI DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR nfiVu SECTION OFFICER 1. The Principal, Secretary Minorities Department, Government of Andhra 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] 6- Tw^CCs to GP for Social Welfare, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 7. One CC to Sri S. Arifullah, SC for Waqf Board (OPUC) 8. Three C.D. Copies //TRUE COPY// To. N high court DATED;20/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.18515 of 2014 disposing the W P WITHOUTCOSTS