APHC010041782017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 15552/2017 Between: 1. NALADALA NARASIMHA RAO, PRAKASAM DIST., S/O. LATE N.BASAVAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. CHIRRIKURAPADU VILLAGE, JARUGUMALLI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE A P S WAKF BOARD CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 2 OTHERS, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2. THE INSPECTOR AUDITOR, WAKFS, PRAKASAM DISTRICT AT ONGOLE. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, JARGUMALLI MANDAL, JARGUMALI, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction, more in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents 1 and 2 herein in trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land to an extent of Ac. 1.39 cents in Sy.No.102/1 of Chirrikurapadu village, Jarugumilli Mandal, Prakasam District by initiating the action under Section 51 of the Waqf Act, 1995 that too after a long lapse of more than 70 years from the date of SRS,J W.P.No.15552 of 2017 purchase of the land through a registered sale deed bearing Doct. No.4806/1943 dated 11.12.1943 as being illelgal, arbitrary and is in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and in violation of principles of natural justice and fair play and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the aforesaid land, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP 19183 OF 2017 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 direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land to an extnet of Ac. 1.39 cents in Sy.No.102/1 of Chirrikurapadu village, Jarugumilli Mandal, Prakasam District, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M CHALAPATHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SHAIK KARIMULLAH (SC FOR WAKF BOARD RAYALASEEMA) 2. D V N ACHARYA The Court made the following: :: ORDER :: Impugning the proceedings issued by respondent No.1 vide F.No.13/Prot/PKM/2016, dated 21.02.2017 (Ex.P1), the above writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri Bhanu, learned counsel representing Sri M. Chalapathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shaik Khaja Basha, learned Standing Counsel, appeared for respondents 1 & 2, and Ms. Vijayeswari, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appeared for respondent No.3. SRS,J W.P.No.15552 of 2017 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the property to the extent of Ac.1.39 cents in Sy.No.102/1 of Chirrikurapadu Village, Jarugumilli Mandal, Prakasam District. The ancestors of the petitioner purchased an extent of Ac.12.79 cents under a registered document No.4806/1943, dated 11.12.1943. Thereafter, the petitioner succeeded to the extent of Ac.1.39 cents. The revenue authorities issued a passbook and title deed in favour of the petitioner. 4. Be that as it may, respondent No.1 issued notice under Section 51 of the Waqf Board Act vide F.No.13/Prot/PKM/2016, dated 08.08.2016, calling upon the petitioner, along with other encroachers, to submit an explanation. Thereafter, the explanations were submitted by the counsel on behalf of 42 encroachers in October 2016. Without considering the explanations, the order impugned was passed. 5. Sri Shaik Khaja Basha, learned Standing Counsel, would submit that the total extent of Ac.112.40 cents in Sy.No.102 in T.D.No.347, was notified as Waqf property. A survey was conducted. Later, a Gazette notification was published under Gazette No.18-A, dated 02.05.1963. Even before the Waqf Act, 1954, the Mussalman Waqf Act, 1923, was in vogue to protect all the Waqf properties. Even during the British Rule, the Inam property was treated as Waqf property. The Mutawallies, appointed under wakif, have no right to alienate the waqf property. The sellers, as per the document, are sons of Sri Sk.Azeemuddin, who was the Mouzan of the Mosque. Learned counsel also would submit that, except for submitting an explanation, the petitioner did not appear before the authority. The authority, after considering the explanation, passed the order impugned. Against the order impugned, the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 83(2) of the Waqf Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The petitioner, without availing the alternative remedy, approached this Court. Page 4 of 5 SRS,J W.P.No.15552 of 2017 6. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner will approach the Waqf Tribunal. 7. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, without touching the merits of the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed of, at the stage of admission with the consent of both the learned counsel, giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Waqf Tribunal as per Section 83(2) of the Act. In such an event, the learned Waqf Tribunal shall consider the case and pass appropriate orders, strictly as per the law. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date : 03.04.2025 TVN SRS,J W.P.No.15552 of 2017 233 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION No.15552 OF 2017 Date : 03.04.2025 TVN