APHC010611762025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.31720 of 2025 Between: 1. JAMMAPET MUKTHAR AHMED, S/O J. ATA MOHAMMED, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/OD.NO. 1/541/21C, 4TH CLASS EMPLOYEE COLONY, REVENUE WARD NO.1, ADONI, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MINORITIES WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE A P STATE WAQF BOARD, REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 4TH FLOOR, IMDADGHAR, WAQF COMPLEX, OPP HEAD POST OFFICE, NEAR KALESWARA RAO MARKET, VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R. DISTRICT. 3. THE INSPECTOR AUDITOR, WAKFS, COLLECTORATE, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 4. DARGAH HAZRATH SYEDA FATHIMA BEEVI SYED SATHU BEE, REP. BY ITS SAJJADA NASHEEN AND MUTHAWALI, ADONI TOWN, KURNOOL 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 a Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the order of the 2nd Respondent dt.10-09-2025 in F.No.M7/5/Prot/KNL/2004, is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, which is nothing but creation of fresh cause of action as is to deprive the Petitioners legal right, violation of fundamental 2 rights guaranteed under Article 19, 21, contrary to the Order 2 Rule 2 of C.P.C. and consequently SET ASIDE the order of the 2nd Respondent dt.10-09-2025 in F.No.M7/5/Prot/KNL/2004. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A SYAM SUNDAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE 2. MD ABDUL MATEEN QURESHI 3. SHAIK KHAJA BASHA The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: "……to issue a Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the order of the 2nd Respondent dt.10-09-2025 in F.No.M7/5/Prot/KNL/2004, is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, which is nothing but creation of fresh cause of action as is to deprive the Petitioners legal right, violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19, 21, contrary to the Order 2 Rule 2 of C.P.C. and consequently SET ASIDE the order of the 2nd Respondent dt.10-09-2025 in F.No.M7/5/Prot/KNL/2004, and pass such other orders……" 2. The present Writ Petition is filed impugning the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 10.09.2025. The 2nd respondent has issued the impugned proceedings to take steps to evict the petitioner from the subject lands within 15 days and next to take steps for filing an Original Application before the Waqf Tribunal as required under Section 54(3) of the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995 (for short, 8the Waqf Act9). 3. The said proceedings are challenged in the present Writ Petition on the ground that the 2nd respondent is trying to evict the petitioner from the subject land without following due procedure as outlined under Section 54(3) of the Waqf Act. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent has fairly admitted that the petitioner is to be evicted under due procedure of law as outlined under Section 54(3) & (4) of the Waqf Act. 4 5. For effective disposal of the Writ Petition, it is imperative to re- produce sub-sections (3) & (4) of Section 54 of the Waqf Act, which is extracted hereunder: "54. Removal of encroachment from [waqf] property.— xxxxx (3) If, after considering the objections, received during the period specified in the notice, and after conducting an inquiry in such manner as may be prescribed, the Chief Executive Officer is satisfied that the property in question is [waqf] property and that there has been an encroachment on any such [waqf] property, [he may, make an application to the Tribunal for grant of order of eviction for removing] such encroachment and deliver possession of the land, building, space or other property encroached upon to the mutawalli of the [waqf]. (4) The Tribunal, upon receipt of such application from the Chief Executive Officer, for reasons to be recorded therein, make an order of eviction directing that the waqf property shall be vacated by all persons who may be in occupation thereof or any part thereof, and cause a copy of the order to be affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the waqf property: Provided that the Tribunal may before making an order of eviction, give an opportunity of being heard to the person against whom the application for eviction has been made by the Chief Executive Officer." 6. As per Section 54(3) of the Waqf Act, if the Chief Executive Officer is satisfied that a property in question is waqf property and that there has been an encroachment on any such waqf property, he may, make an application to the Tribunal for grant of order of eviction for removing such encroachment. Under Section 54(4) of the Waqf Act, the Tribunal, after receipt of such application from the Chief Executive Officer, for reasons to be recorded therein, make an order of eviction directing that the waqf property shall be vacated by all persons who may 5 be in occupation thereof or any part thereof, provided that the Tribunal may before making an order of eviction, give an opportunity of being heard to the person against whom the application for eviction has been made by the Chief Executive Officer. 7. It is undisputed fact that a notice was issued under Section 54 (3) and (4) of the Waqf Act to the petitioner, it is contended by the petitioner that such a notice is contemplated under the Waqf Act. Admittedly, notice was issued to the Muttavalli by the Chief Executive Officer, whereas a notice provided under the Waqf Act should be issued by the Waqf Tribunal upon an Original Application filed under Section 54(4) of the Waqf Act. In the present case, a notice was issued by the Chief Executive Officer to the Muttavalli. It is known law that if a statute requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it should be done in that manner or not at all. However, the 2nd respondent, in order to evict the petitioner from the encroached property of the waqf, they have to follow the procedure as outlined under Section 54(3) & (4) of the Waqf Act. Therefore, the respondents are directed to follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 54(3)&(4) of the Waqf Act to evict the petitioner from the subject property. Meanwhile, the respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps against the subject property. 8. With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 28.01.2026 siva 6 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.31720 of 2025 Date: 28.01.2026 siva