NANDA SESHIKALA Vs. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE WAKF BOARD
LAWS(APH)-2003-8-85
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on August 13,2003

NANDA SESHIKALA Appellant
VERSUS
A.P.STATE WAKF BOARD Respondents




JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the notice issued by the 1st respondent in F.No.l820/M4/Prot/ VZM/2000 dated 29-4-2000 and the order passed by the 2nd respondent in proceedings No.l820/M6/Prot/VZM/2000 dated 25-10-2000 and also the notices issued by the 3rd respondent in Rc.No.72/2001/L dated 27-1-2001 to all the three petitioners in respect of the land in T.S.Nos.269 and 506 of Vizianagaram town, covered by Sy.Nos.45/2 and 46/26 of Cantonment Area of Vizianagaram town, as illegal and void.
(2.)The facts in brief are that the 1st respondent issued the impugned notices to the petitioners under Section 54(1) of the Wakf Act, 1995 (for short 'the Act') on the ground that the petitioners unauthorisedly encroached into the land of Wakf property to the extents indicated in the notices. Challenging the said encroachments, the then Managing Committee of New Mosque, filed three suits in O.S.Nos.137,138 and 146 of 1994 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, seeking declaration and eviction. Out of the three Suits, on 28-7-1998, O.S.No.137/1994 was dismissed for default and the remaining suits in O.S.Nos.138 and 146 were dismissed as withdrawn on 28-9-2000. It appears that the latter two suits were withdrawn on the ground that already notices to vacate the encroached land, under Section 54 of the Act were issued by the 1st respondent and the consequential proceedings under Section 55 of the Act were issued for eviction. Challenging these proceedings, the petitioners who are the alleged encroachers filed this writ petition.
(3.)The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the suits were filed and dismissed prior to the coming into force of the Act and therefore the 1st respondent and as well as the Tribunal have no jurisdiction to take action against the petitioners. He stated that as per the Act, the Tribunals have to be constituted under Section 83 of the Act immediately after coming into force of the said Act, but in reality they have been constituted only in the year 1997. Therefore, he contends that the plaintiffs in the suits i.e., the then Managing Committee of the New Mosque, ought to have sought for transfer of the suits to the Tribunal after their constitution, instead of withdrawing them. He stated that the Honble High Court also issued a circular to this effect in Roc.No.2960/E1/98 dated 13-7-1999. He further submitted that a Division Bench of this Court in P. Rama Rao v. High Court of A.P, has upheld the validity of the said circular.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.