APHC010493032026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY, THE 22 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 27131 OF 2026 Between: 1. R Rajendran, S/o. Late RadhaKrishna, Aged 75 Years, Occ Business and Cultivation R/o. Radha Bungalow Road, Palamaner Town and Mandal, Chittoor District. 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Prl Secretary, Minority Welfare Department, Secretariat Bldgd, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 522237 2. The Andhra Pradesh State Waqf Board, Rep by its Chief Executive Officer, 4th Floor, Imdadghar Near Kaleswar Rao Market, Vijayawada. 520001 3. The District Revenue Officer cum, D District. 517001 4. The District Minority Welfare Officer cum, Addl District Waqf Officer, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 517001 5. The Inspector Auditor, Waqf Cum District Waqf Board Manager Chittoor, Chittoor District 5i700i IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE 22nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 27131 OF 2026 Rajendran, S/o. Late RadhaKrishna, Aged 75 Years, Occ Business and Cultivation R/o. Radha Bungalow Road, Palamaner Town and Mandal, AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Prl Secretary, Minority Welfare nt, Secretariat Bldgd, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Andhra Pradesh State Waqf Board, Rep by its Chief Executive Officer, 4th Floor, Imdadghar Near Kaleswar Rao Market, Vijayawada. 520001 3. The District Revenue Officer cum, District Waqf Officer, Chittoor, Chittoor 4. The District Minority Welfare Officer cum, Addl District Waqf Officer, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 517001 5. The Inspector Auditor, Waqf Cum District Waqf Board Manager Chittoor, ...Respondents IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Rajendran, S/o. Late RadhaKrishna, Aged 75 Years, Occ Business and Cultivation R/o. Radha Bungalow Road, Palamaner Town and Mandal, ...Petitioner 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Prl Secretary, Minority Welfare nt, Secretariat Bldgd, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. - 2. The Andhra Pradesh State Waqf Board, Rep by its Chief Executive Officer, 4th Floor, Imdadghar Near Kaleswar Rao Market, Vijayawada. 520001 istrict Waqf Officer, Chittoor, Chittoor 4. The District Minority Welfare Officer cum, Addl District Waqf Officer, 5. The Inspector Auditor, Waqf Cum District Waqf Board Manager Chittoor, ...Respondents 2 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 Certiorari, call for the records relating to the impugned Order F.No. 02/PROT/CTR/2022 dated 7.8.2026 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, A P State Waqf Board and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and violative of principles of natural justices besides being violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300(A) of Constitution of India IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 suspend the Orders passed by the 2nd Respondent vide F.No. 02/Prot/ CTR /2022 dated 7.8.2026 pending disposal of the above Writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: T C KRISHNAN Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE 3 The Court made the following order: Challenging the order of respondent No.2-Chief Executive Officer, A.P State Waqf Board passed in F.No.02/PROT/CTR/2022 dated 07.08.2026 under Section 54(3) of the Waqf Act by way of summary enquiry wherein and where under directed the concerned Assistant Secretary to take steps to serve the order to the encroachers directing to vacate and hand over the vacant possession within 15 days, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 2. Heard Sri T.C.Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader of Social Welfare Department and Sri Shaik Khaja Basha, learned standing counsel for the Waqf Board. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, contended that, the petitioner is the absolute owner of the property to an extent of Ac.0.35 cents in Survey No.388/1 and Ac.1.16 cents in Survey No.388/2, situated at Palamaner Revenue Village, having acquired the same from his ancestors. He further submitted that, based on the alleged report of the Inspector/Auditor, Chittoor, dated 29.12.2022, respondent No.2 took cognizance of the matter and conducted an enquiry by issuing a show-cause notice dated 21.11.2022 under Section 54(1) of the Waqf Act, 1995. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation on 28.04.2023 enclosing a Xerox copy of the registered partition deed dated 09.12.1964, an unregistered Will dated 24.12.1990, and Xerox 4 copies of the title deeds standing in the name of the petitioner, bearing Khatha No.784 of Palamaner Mandal. The Enquiry Authority, without taking into consideration the explanation submitted by the petitioner and the documents enclosed therewith, erroneously passed the impugned order dated 07.08.2026, thereby treating the petitioner as an encroacher. He further submitted that, in the impugned order, except stating that the encroachers had furnished 1-B Namoona, the authority has not referred to or considered the other documents produced by the petitioner. Mere reference to the documents is not sufficient, and the authority ought to have assigned cogent reasons as to why the documents placed by the petitioner were not considered. Instead, the authority straightaway directed the concerned Assistant Secretary to serve the order on the encroachers and further directed them to vacate the premises and hand over vacant possession within 15 days. Hence, the impugned order suffers from non-consideration of relevant material, non-application of mind, and violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence, prayed to set aside the impugned order. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that there is neither illegality nor procedural irregularity in passing the impugned order. He submitted that the show-cause notice was issued on 21.11.2022 under Section 54(1) of the Waqf Act, 1995. As the petitioner had not submitted his explanation, two further notices dated 01.12.2023 and 10.03.2023 were issued and pursuant to the said notices, the petitioner submitted his 5 explanation. Therefore, no valid grounds have been raised warranting interference by this Court. However, sought time for filing the counter-affidavit. 5. Perused the material on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 6. On the allegation that the petitioner had encroached upon the subject property, the Waqf Board issued a show-cause notice dated 21.11.2022 under Section 54(1) of the Waqf Act, 1995. As could be seen from the record, the Waqf Board issued two further notices dated 01.12.2023 and 10.03.2023. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 28.04.2023. A perusal of the said explanation would disclose that the petitioner specifically relied upon three documents, namely: (1) a Xerox copy of the registered partition deed dated 09.12.1964 executed between the father of the petitioner and his brothers, sisters and mother (2) an unregistered Will dated 24.12.1990 executed by R.J. Ramachandraiah Chetty in favour of the petitioner and (3) a Xerox copy of the title deed standing in the name of the petitioner, bearing Khatha No.784 of Palamaner Mandal. 7. The specific contention of the petitioner is that the aforesaid explanation and the documents enclosed therewith were not taken into consideration by the Enquiry Authority while passing the impugned order. 8. A perusal of the impugned order would clearly show that the Waqf Board has not considered the documents placed by the petitioner along with his explanation. Except referring to the 1-B Namoona, the impugned order 6 does not disclose any consideration of the other documents relied upon by the petitioner. Even with regard to the 1-B Namoona, the impugned order does not disclose as to how the said document was considered or what conclusion was arrived at on the basis thereof. Thus, the impugned order does not reflect any meaningful consideration of the explanation and the material placed by the petitioner. Such an order is contrary to the principles of audi alteram partem. When an authority is required to exercise power under the provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995, it is incumbent upon such authority to adhere to the procedure prescribed under the said law and rules in vogue to consider the material placed before it before arriving at a conclusion affecting the rights and interests of the person concerned. 9. The requirement of recording reasons is an essential facet of fair decision-making. In State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar1 the Hon’ble Apex Court held that ‘reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration of justice, the authority ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief in its order, indicative of an application of its mind; all the more when its order is amenable to further avenue of challenge.’ The Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the importance of recording reasons in several decisions. “Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion, and without the same it becomes lifeless. (See Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar and Ors. (2003 (7) Supreme 152). 1 (2004) 2 S.C.R 7 Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union (1971 (1) All E.R. 1148) observed "The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration". In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree (1974 ICR 120)(NIRC) it was observed: "Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice". Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at". Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system; reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made; in other words, a speaking out. The "inscrutable face of a sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi- judicial performance. The above position was highlighted by us in State of Punjab v. Bhag Singh (2004 (1) SCC 547).” The above decisions make it clear that recording of reasons is an essential requirement of fair and proper decision-making. The reasons must disclose due application of mind by the authority to the material and contentions placed before it. A quasi-judicial authority is required to consider 8 the relevant material placed on record and assign reasons for accepting or rejecting the same. An order which does not disclose such consideration would be contrary to the principles of natural justice. 10. In the present case, the impugned order does not disclose consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner or the documents relied upon by him in support of his claim over the subject property. There is also no discussion or finding as to why the said documents were not accepted or what evidentiary value was attached to them. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is illegal and suffers from non-consideration of relevant material and violation of the principles of natural justice. Since the impugned order is ex facie illegal, no useful purpose would be served by inviting counter-affidavit and even if counter is filed, the defects in the impugned order cannot be cured, as the respondents cannot improve the reasons contained in the impugned order by way of counter. As such, the impugned order is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of setting aside the impugned order dated 07.08.2026 passed by respondent No.2 in F.No.02/PROT/CTR/2022. The matter is remanded to respondent No.2 for fresh consideration. Upon such remand, respondent No.2 shall consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner dated 28.04.2023, along with all the documents enclosed therewith, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and all other concerned parties, and thereafter pass 9 appropriate orders in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 22.09.2026 C.C by 29.09.2026 MP 10 131 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO.27131 of 2026 22.09.2026 MP