GAJJALA VENKATESWARULU Vs. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE WAKF TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs in the suit filed by them against the respondents herein questioning the order dated 07-11-2001 issued by the Chief Executive Officer of the State Wakf Board under Section 54(3) of the Wakf Act directing the petitioners herein to remove the encroachment said to have been made by the petitioners herein in the Wakf land to an extent of 854 Sq.Yds belonging to Jail Mosque situated at Jail, Asifabad. It is stated in the said order that notice under Sec. 54(1) of the Wakf Act, 1995 was issued to the petitioners calling upon them to show cause as to why the order should not be passed against them to remove the encroachments. The petitioners filed their objections and the same has been rejected and made the aforesaid order under Section 54(3) of the Act. The prayer of the petitioners in the suit to pass a judgment and decree declaring the said order dated 07-11-2001 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently grant injunction directing the respondents not to interfere with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The A.P. State Wakf Tribunal has returned the plaint by order dated 11-01-2002 stating that the notice under Section 89 of the Act 1995 is mandatory and non-issuance of notice is vital to the proceedings itself. Hence, the plaint is returned for compliance with provisions of the Act.

(2.) Sri. B. Vijaysen Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the said order of the Wakf Tribunal returning the plaint is contrary to law and the suit filed by the petitioners is maintainable under Section 54(4) of the Wakf Act, 1995 against the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer, under Sec. 54(3) of the Act. Questioning the order of the Chief Executive Officer made under Sec.54(3) of the Act, a suit is maintainable under Section 54(4) of the Act and no notice under Section 89 of Act is necessarily to be given. Two months notice contemplated under Section 89 of the Act relates to the suit to be filed against the Wakf Board and not in respect of the suit filed against the orders passed under Section 54(3) of the Act. He further placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in W.P.No. 2514/1999 dated 07-12-1999 wherein the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer of the State Wakf Board under Section 54(3) was questioned and this Court held that the suit alone is maintainable against the said order under Section 54(4) and no notice needs to be issued for filing a suit under Section 89 of the Act. The Chief Executive Officer appointed under Section 23 of the Act is not an integral part of the Board and the said officer cannot be equated to that of the Board. Therefore, the question of issuing notice under Section 89 of the Act does not arise before filing the suit. An aggrieved person against the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer under Section 54(3) of the Act is entitled to file a suit challenging the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer directly without any prior notice as required under Section 89 of the Act before filing the suit against the Board. Accordingly, it was held by this Court that the suits filed against the orders passed under Section 54(3) of the Act, are maintainable before the Tribunal for adjudication under Section 54(4) of the Act without any notice as required under Section 89 of the Act.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the Wakf Board placed reliance on another judgment of this Court in C.R.P.No. 4311/1999 dated 31-08-2001 and submitted that in every suit filed under Section 89 of the Act, notice is required to be given and without issuing any such notice, the plaints are liable to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC and, therefore, the plaint was rightly returned by the Wakf Tribunal.