GONDI PARSHWANATH SARVODAYA TEERTHDHAM Vs. HABEEBUDDIN AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner filed W.P.No.32868 of 2010 against the A.P. Wakf Board, represented by the Chief Executive Officer, challenging the notice, dated 01.12.2010 issued by the respondent under Section 51 of the Wakf Act (for short 'the Act'), in relation to a piece of land under the occupation of the petitioner. The writ petition was admitted and an interim order was passed on 28.12.2010 in W.PM.P.No.41761 of 2010, suspending the notice. This contempt case is filed alleging that the respondent has violated the order of this Court and proceeded to address letters to the District Collector as late as on 04.03.2011 and that the District Collector in turn issued proceedings dated 11.05.2011 directing recovery of the possession of the petitioner. It is stated that the respondent got erected sign boards depicting that the property belongs to Wakf Board and all these acts constitute a deliberate contempt of orders of this Court.

(2.) THE respondent filed a counter affidavit and an additional counter affidavit. It is stated that the transfer of the land in favour of the petitioner is not legal and that proceedings were initiated accordingly. In the recent past, the respondent herein by name Habeebuddin is said to have been repatriated to his parent Department. The present Chief Executive Officer also filed an additional counter affidavit. The purport thereof is that the fact that an interim order was passed by this Court was not brought to the notice of the respondent immediately by the Tappal Section. Having said that, the respondent proceeded to state that the possession of the petitioner over the land in question was objectionable and accordingly, it was resumed to the Wakf Board in August 2011. It is also stated that he issued proceedings, dated 05.12.2012 withdrawing the earlier proceedings. Counter affidavits are silent as to the date, on which the respondent became aware of the orders of this Court,

(3.) THE respondent made an attempt to throw the blame on the subordinate officials stating that the copy of the order was not put up before him. It needs to be mentioned here that as required under the Writ Rules, the papers are served on the Standing Counsel for the Wakf Board before the writ petition is filed and at the time of admission, the Standing Counsel appears and takes notice. Assuming that the service of papers before the writ petition is filed or the presence of the Standing Counsel when the interim order is passed, do not constitute notice to the respondent, the fact remains that the copy of the order was received by him. To a specific question as to when exactly the respondent came to know about the orders of this Court, it is stated that on 01.02.2011, he has seen it. Atleast from then onwards, he ought to have desisted from taking any steps. It has already been mentioned that he went on issuing letters/proceedings addressed in March and April 2011 to the District collector. The Lawyer's notice dated 01.02.2011 got issued by the petitioner did not have any impact upon the respondent.