//
you're reading...
legal issues

writ not maintainable in respect of any property under wakf act=The Act itself provides for an alternative remedy by way of a suit before the Wakf Tribunal constituted under Section 83 of the Act for redressal of any grievance against notice issued under Section 54(3) of the Act. When there are several factual disputes staring in this case as indicated above, it is for the petitioners to approach the Tribunal for redressal by way of filing a civil suit by raising all contentions and inviting the Tribunal for decision on all those factual disputes by leading oral and documentary evidence in support of them. I do not find any valid or legal reasons to entertain this writ petition. =3) Section 54(4) of the Act reads as follows: “(4) Nothing contained in sub-section (3) shall prevent any person aggrieved by the order made by the Chief Executive Officer under that sub-section from instituting a suit in a Tribunal to establish that he has right, title or interest in the land, building, space or other property.”

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH

English: Hight court of the state of Andhra pr...

Image via Wikipedia

AT HYDERABAD

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

WRIT PETITION No.67 of 2012

 

DATE: 27.01.2012

 

Between:

Pangaluri Nageswara Rao and 2 others

                                             …… Petitioners

And

The Chief Executive Officer,

A.P.State Wakf Board and 2 others

…..Respondents

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

WRIT PETITION No.67 of 2012

ORDER :

The petitioners 1 to 3 claim to be sons and widow of one late Venkataramaiah.  They are seeking writ of mandamus declaring notice dated 15.11.2011 given under Section 54(3) of the Wakf Act, 1995 (in short, the Act) as illegal and that it is against a dead person viz., P.Venkataramaiah and that the proposed action of the 1strespondent under Section 54(3) of the Act without giving notice under Section 54(1) of the Act is also illegal and against principles of natural justice.  Subject matter of this writ petition relating to the notice dated 15.11.2011 is property with H.No.2-196/1, 2-197 of Kodad village and Mandal of Nalgonda District.  It is an extent of 433 Sq. yards in S.Nos.1 and 2 of Kodad village.  The 1st respondent/Chief Executive Officer, A.P.State Wakf Board claims that the said land is wakf land and it is part of Ac.7-09 guntas belonging to Masjid Sarai Mir Alam situated in the same village.  On that ground, the 1st respondent was taking steps under Section 54 of the Act alleging that Kokku Susheela, W/o.Laxmi Narayana and P.Venkataramaiah were the encroachers in 433 Sq. yards out of Ac.7-09 guntas.  Similar eviction proceedings are also being taken against several others simultaneously on the ground that they were encroaching the wakf property by way of houses and cinema hall.  It is the contention of the alleged encroachers that it is not wakf property and it is a land which is personal property of Syed Mohinuddin Quadri who sold the property in S.Nos.1 and 2 in the year 1950 to one Samineni Viswanadham who in turn sold the said property in favour of Kakumanu Narsi Reddy under a registered sale deed in the year 1956.  Thus, the petitioners are disputing the property to be wakf property.  The said dispute regarding title to the property is question of fact which this Court may not entertain in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2) It is contention of the petitioners that without giving notice under Section 54(1) of the Act, the 1strespondent is seeking their eviction from the land straightaway issuing impugned notice under Section 54(3) of the Act, that too in the name of a dead person viz., Venkataramaiah who died in the year 1997.  It is contended by the standing counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 that notice under Section 54(1) of the Act was issued in the year 2002 to the same persons as herein viz., Kokku Susheela, W/o.Laxmi Narayana and P.Venkataramaiah and that Kokku Susheela along with other encroachers gave a representation to the 1st respondent denying the property as wakf property.  It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that Kokku Susheela is a neighbour of the petitioners and she has nothing to do with the property in occupation of the petitioners.  The petitioners did not state in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition whether property bearing H.No.2-196/1, 2-197 is one and the same property for which two door numbers are given or whether property in H.No.2-196/1 is separable from property bearing H.No.2-197 and Kokku Susheela is in occupation of which portion of the property out of this property and the petitioners are in occupation of which portion of the property out of the notice property.  The notice reads as if the entire property of 433 Sq. yards is one property in which Kokku Susheela and P.Venkataramaiah are in occupation. In case Kokku Susheela and P.Venkataramaiah who is predecessor of the petitioners have been in joint possession of this property comprising in 433 Sq. yards, then notice issued under Section 54(1) of the Act by the 1st respondent would be a valid notice even though P.Venkataramaiah was not alive by then.  It is contended by the respondents’ counsel that even death of P.Venkataramaiah in the year 1997 and relationship of the petitioners with Venkataramaiah are matters raising factual dispute.  In the light of the above factual disputes pertaining to this case, this Court may not entertain muchless decide the controversy in this writ petition.

3) Section 54(4) of the Act reads as follows:

“(4) Nothing contained in sub-section (3) shall prevent any person aggrieved by the order made by the Chief Executive Officer under that sub-section from instituting a suit in a Tribunal to establish that he has right, title or interest in the land, building, space or other property.”

The Act itself provides for an alternative remedy by way of a suit before the Wakf Tribunal constituted under Section 83 of the Act for redressal of any grievance against notice issued under Section 54(3) of the Act.  When there are several factual disputes staring in this case as indicated above, it is for the petitioners to approach the Tribunal for redressal by way of filing a civil suit by raising all contentions and inviting the Tribunal for decision on all those factual disputes by leading oral and documentary evidence in support of them.  I do not find any valid or legal reasons to entertain this writ petition.

4) In the result, the writ petition is dismissed giving liberty to the petitioners to approach A.P.Wakf Tribunal for necessary relief.

_______________________________

SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J

January 27, 2012

ksh

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 2,887,372 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: