IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 3777 OF 2020 Between: Jamia Masjid Kotagulla Village, Rep. by it's Secretary, S.Basheer Ahmed S/o. Syed Sab, H.No.15-361-2, 15*^ ward, Kotagulla Village, Kadiri Taluk and Mandal, Anantapur District, A.P. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Assn. Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. 2. The Special Chief Secretary and Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh. 3. The District Collector, Anantapur District. 4. The Tahsildar, Anantapur District. 5. The President, Judicial Employees Association, Taluk Unit Housing Welfare Society, Senior Civil Judge Court Complex, Kadiri Town, Anantapur District ...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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned G.O.Ms.No.1362 Revenue (Assn.V) dept, dated 27.11.2008 on the file of the 1®* respondent allotting Ac.0.82 Cents of land inSy.No.402/5 of Kotagulla village, Kadiri Mandal, Anantapur District in favor of the 5‘^ respondent contrary the No.122/wakf/77-3 dated 06.05.1977 issued by the respondent allotting memo the same for the purpose of grave yard of the muslim community of the Kotagulla village, Kadiri taluk and mandal, Anantapur district is being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violation of the provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995 and Rules made thereunder and consequentially direct the respondents not to restrain the muslim community of the Kotagulla village to bury the dead bodies in the subject burial ground by considering their representations. lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Between: The President, Judicial Employees Association, Taluk Unit Housing Welfare Society, Senior Civil Judge Court Complex, Kadiri Town, Anantapur District. ...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT AND 1. Jamia Masjid Kotagulla Village, Rep. by it's Secretary Ahmed S/o. Syed Sab, H.No.15-361-2, 15**^ ward, Kotagulla Village Kadiri Taluk and Mandal, Anantapur District, A.P. S.Basheer ... WRIT PETITIONER/RESPONDENT 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Assn. Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. 3. The Special Chief Secretary and Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh. 4. The District Collector, Anantapur District. 5. The Tahsildar, Anantapur District. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fiied in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order granted in IA.1 of 2020 i WP.No.3777 of 2020 dated 18-02-2020. lA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 official respondents and particularly the 5 for not to restraining the muslim community of Kotagulla Village, Kadiri Taluk Mandal, Anantapur District to bury the dead bodies in the burial ground in an extent of Ac. 1-00 Cents out of the Ac. 7-94 Cents in Sy.No.402/5 of Kotagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal and Taluk, Anantapur District pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S.M.SUBHANI Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: ASST.GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI KRISTAM SAKTHI NIRANJAN GUPTHA in respondent The Court made the following: ORDER .f APHC010062222020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] WEDNESDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 3777/2020 Between: ...PETITIONER Jamia Masjid Kotagulla Village AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.SUBHANI SM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.KRISTAM SAKTHI NIRANJAN GUPTHA 2.GPFOR REVENUE (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER;- Heard Sri Subhani S M, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 2. The writ petition is filed challenging the G.O.Ms.No.1362 Revenue (Assignment-V) Department, dated 27.11.2008, issued by the Government, allotting land in favour of the respondent. It is contended that the said alienation is contrary to the Memo dated 06.05.1977, issued by the 1®* respondent. Vide the said Memo, the subject land had been allotted in favour of the petitioner. It is contended that alienation was made in favour of 2 the S® respondent without issuing notice to the petitioner Since the land i; earmarked for Muslim graveyard, it becomes the property of the Wakf and the same cannot be allotted for any other purposes. He further relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh and Others Vs. DR. Rao, .VB.J.Chelikani and Others. the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sayyed Ali and Others Vs. Board, Hyderabad and Others. 3. The 3^'^ respondent filed counter affidavit stating that the total extent of Sy.No.402 of Kotagulla Village is Ac.7.94 cents. Out of which extent of Ac.7-00 cents was allotted to Sericulture Department after sub-diving the same. The details of sub-division are as under: IS And the decision of A.P.Wakf an Sy.No. Extent Classified Remarks Transferred as sericulture silk farm poramboke 402-1 7.00 402-2 0.05 UAW Graves 402-3 0.04 UAW Graves 402-4 0.03 UAW Graves 402-5 0.82 UAW 4. It is stated that an extent of Ac.7.00 cents in Sy.No.402-1 was allotted in favour of Sericulture Department. There are some graves in Sy.No.402-2, 402-3, in an extent of Ac.0.05 cents and Ac.0.04 cents respectively; The land in Sy.No.402-4 and 405-5 is free from all encumbrances and there are no graves or tombs in these lands. An extent of Ac.0.82 cents falling under Sy.No.402-5 was alienated to the Judicial Employees Cooperative Society for the purpose of house sites on payment of market value of Rs.64,000-00 per acre. It is further stated that an extent of Ac.3.79 3 cents in Sy.NcJ.408 of Kotagulla village, had been earmarked for graveyard for Muslim Community of the Village, and they have been using the said land as burial ground. The 5^^ respondent also filed its counter contending that. 5. allotment was made upon the recommendation of the District Collector, Anantapur. The Government has accordingly issued impugned G.O. It is further stated that the subject property was never Wakf property, the same was alienated on payment of market value, before such alienation was made notice was published on 05.09.2004 and that the Municipal Council of Kadiri Municipality has also given its consent. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended 6. that the land was alienated in their favour on payment of market value. And that the petitioner has no locus standi, to file the writ petition. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is contended that the Apex Court had found fault only with the assignment made in favour of certain categories at discounted price, the 5*^ respondent would not fall under the said categories. He drew the attention of the Court to the proceedings of the R.D.O dated 23.10.2008, submitted that the land earmarked for burial ground was only 12 cents. 7. It Is further contended that the deponent of the writ petition earlier filed writ petition in W.RNo.24277 of 2009 challenging the assignment made in favour of the 5*^ respondent under the G.O. impugned in the present writ petition. The said writ petition was dismissed for default. It is further 4 contended the fact of filing the earlier writ petition, was suppressed by the petitioner. 8. Considered the rival submissions. 9. At the outset, it can be said that the writ petitioner has misrepresented the facts in as much as the deponent of the present writ petition, portrayed himself the secretary of the petitioner association, had earlier filed a writ petition in his individual capacity, challenging the very G.O which is impugned in the present writ petition. The said writ petition dismissed for default on 08.12.2014. After the dismissal of the writ petition, the petitioner appears to have made representations to the Collector 02.01.2019 and 30.12.2019, seeking allotment of Ac. 1.00 cents land in favour of Muslim Jamaat. Thereafter, filed the present writ petition in the name of Jamia Masjid, Kotagulla Village. The petitioner did not mention the earlier writ petition, which was filed for the very same relief. In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner to the counter affidavit(s), the petitioner tried to meet, the argument by stating that the fact of filing of the writ petition was mentioned in the representation made to the authorities, thus contending that there has been no misrepresentation. In my view, the same cannot be considered a proper disclosure. same was on Further, the petitioner did not file any of its resolutions authorizing the deponent of the writ petition to file the writ petition. It appears from the pleading as if the writ petition is filed by an individual, the deponent of the writ 10. V € 5 petition, who has already approached this Court for the very same relief by way of the writ petition in W.P.No.24277 of 2009. 11. The further contention of the petitioner that the Government had allotted land for the graveyard is also not tenable because the claim of the petitioner is not supported by any evidence. Secondly, its claim is based on the proceedings of the Assistant Secretary to Government dated 06.05.1977. The said Government Memo was issued to the Sericulture Department to fence the property properly and leave an extent of Ac. 1.00 cents on the southern side of the graves, where a large cluster of graves exists. The said proceeding no where grants or recognizes the right of the Muslim Jamaat over the subject Ac. 1.00 cents. It only directs the Sericulture Department to fence the property properly, leaving an area of Ac. 1.00 cents towards the southern side of the graves. This is the only proceeding, i.e., 06.05.1977, that has been relied upon by the petitioner to say that the land was allotted for the purpose of the graveyard. Apart from the same, this Court had directed the Mandal Surveyor to conduct the survey. As per his report, no tombs/burials exist, and no ruins or burial credentials exist in Sy. No.402-5. 12. The next contention is that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh and Others Vs. DR. Rao, .VB.J.Chelikani and Others, the alienation made in favour of the 5‘^ respondent would have to be cancelled, which may not be a tenable argument for the reason that the Hon’ble Apex Court found fault with the 6 recognition of certain categories viz., MPs, MUs, Officers of the All India Service, State Government, Judges Journalists as a separate class, for allotment of land said extent, the G.Os reads as follows: of the Constitutional Courts at the basic rate. To the were quashed. The order of the Hon’ble Apex Court and “In view of the aforesaid findings and discussion, preferred by the State of Telangana. we dismiss the appeais the Cooperative Societies and their members, and we allow the appeal preferred by Mr. Keshav Rao Jadhav challenging the judgment dated 05.01.2010 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition Nos. 7956, 7997 and 23862 of 2008. The said Writ Petitions Division Bench of the are allowed, thereby issuing a Writ of certiorari and quashing GoM Nos. 243 and 244 dated 28.02.2005 to the extent they classify MPs, MLAs. officers of the AlS/Stafe Government, Judges of the Constitutional Courts, and journalists as a separate class for allotment of land at the basic rate. As a sequitur, GoM Nos. 419, 420, 422 to 425 dated 25.03.2008 551 dated 27.03.2008. are declared to be bad in law, being violative of Article of the Constitution of India, and are quashed by issuing a Writ of certiorari." and GoM No. 14 13. The respondent would not fall under any of the said categories, and the land was assigned not at a basic rate but at a market rate. Therefore, the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court to the said extent is present case, and the same would not distinguishable from the facts of the apply to the present facts of the case. 14. For the above reasons, I do not find Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. any merit in the writ petition. There shall be no 15. order as to costs. \, 4 7 As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/~ N. NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// OFFICER S To 1. One CC to Sri S.M.Subhani, Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 3. One CC to Sri Kristam Sakthi Niranjan Guptha, Advocate. [OPUC] 4. Three CD Copies. gi HIGH COURT DATED:13/02/2025 ORDER WP.No.3777 of 2020 11 MAR 2025 I . Current Section . ^ DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS