HAMEED AH Vs. A P STATE WAKF BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is filed seeking writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent contained in file No.61/J2/Sntc/Hyd/98, dated 15-5-2000 and the consequential proceedings of the 2nd respondent in file No.B/1099/2000, dated 24-5-2000 in directing eviction of the petitioners from premises No.21-1-1098/9, 10 and 11, Rikab Gunj, Hyderabad in exercise of powers under Sections 54 and 55 of Wakf Act, 1995, as illegal and without jurisdiction, and for consequential direction to restore the property back to the petitioners.

(2.) The petitioners are four in number who filed this writ petition stating that the 4th respondent is a Trust incorporated under the provisions of the Trusts Act and registered on 22-5-1998 with the object mentioned therein. It is further stated that the Trust was gifted with the property admeasuring 538 sq.yards bearing premises No.21-1-1098/9, 10 and 11 under three separate Settlement Deeds vide Nos.1280/ 98, 1271/98 and 1272/98, dated 30-5-1998 executed by the original owners in favour of the Trust. It is also the case of the petitioners that in order to develop the land gifted to the Trust, the plans were prepared and submitted to the Municipality for construction of a building. Accordingly the Municipality has granted permission on 29-1-1999 and 5-2-1999 and consequently the construction was commenced. However on the representation of the 1 st respondent, the Municipality cancelled the permission granted to the petitioner No.4-Trust but the same was challenged in the civil Court. The civil Court granted an interim injunction restraining the MCH from interfering with the constructions and it is subsisting. While the matter stood thus, the 1st respondent- Wakf Board issued notice purporting to be under Section 54(1) of the Wakf Act for short 'the Act' dated 20-5-1999 calling upon the petitioners to vacate from the premises viz., 21-1-1098/9, 10 and 11 on the ground that the property was the wakf property and required the petitioners to submit representation, if any, if they so desire. To the said notice, a detailed representation was submitted by the petitioners, dated 28-7-1999 stating that the property in question does not belong to Macca Madina Allauddin Trust nor it a wakf property, and it was stated that the said property belonged to the 4th petitioner having been gifted by the original owners. It was also brought out in the reply that petitioners had already filed suit for perpetual injunction and the same is pending. Subsequent to the receipt of representation dated 4-6-1999, another letter was issued by the Wakf Board directing the petitioners to submit the documents in proof of alleged ownership in the representation dated 4-6-1999. Accordingly on 28-7-1999 they have submitted ten documents and the final order was passed on 15-5-2000 directing eviction of the petitioners from the premises in question. Thereafter, a request was made to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to evict the petitioners from the premises in question and accordingly the proceedings were initiated under Section 55 of the Act by the revenue authorities and ultimately the possession was taken over from the petitioners and handed over to the respondents 1 and 5. As on the date of taking over the possession the petitioners had already constructed ground, first and second floors. Aggrieved by the action of the 1st respondent dated 15-5-2000 and consequential action of taking over possession of the original authorities, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioners Mr. V. Venkata Romano submits that the impugned proceedings dated 15-5-2000 and consequential action are illegal and contrary to law. Under Section 54 of the Act, the Chief Executive Officer is the competent authority to initiate action for evicting the persons from the wakf property. He is the statutory authority constituted under the Act and therefore he alone is the competent authority to initiate action, but in the impugned proceedings he acted on the orders of the Chairperson and such a course of action is not contemplated under the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. The Chairperson has no role to play while initiating action under Section 54 of the Act and therefore, the entire proceedings are illegal and invalid.