Disposed

Shaik Muneer v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Nov 2020WP/16406/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged eviction and claimed tenancy in a Wakf shop. Court found effective alternative remedy available. Petitioner given liberty to submit representation to Wakf Board for final adjudication of the dispute.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to submit representation to 2nd respondent within two weeks for consideration and passing appropriate order within four weeks thereafter.

Shaik Muneer Vs the State of Ap — Landlord and Tenant | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

¶2

Writ Petition No. 16406 of 2020

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition is filed to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the tenancy of the 4^th respondent as illegal and consequently to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to declare the petitioner as the tenant in the petition schedule shop bearing No.34 in Dargah Hazrat Sultan Shaheed Idgah, Masjid situated at Atmakur Town and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

¶5

The case of the petitioner is that he is a tenant in Wakf Shop Nos.32, 33 and 34 under the Management of Dargah Hazrat Sultan Shaheed Idgah, Masjid situated at Atmakur Town and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, since 15.02.2007 by virtue of a rental deed. The tenancy is renewed from time to time and accordingly the enhanced rent is also paid by him. Subsequently, the 4^th respondent managed to create a rent demand notice dated 14.02.2019 in his name in respect of petition schedule shop i.e., Waqf shop No.34 from the office of 3^rd respondent, but the 3^rd respondent has refused to receive the D.D. from 4^th respondent as he is not on record as tenant. Then, the 4^th respondent has approached this Court by way of W.P.No.14240 of 2019 on misrepresentation of facts without arraying him as a party, wherein this Court directed the respondents 2 and 3 to receive the demand draft from the 4^th respondent. He came to know recently that when the 2^nd

¶6

¶7

respondent issued a notice under Land Encroachment Act to the 4^th respondent, he produced the copy of the order passed in W.P.No.14240 of 2019. He is only entitled to remain in possession of the petition schedule shop being the tenant therein. Assailing the action of the respondents 2 and 3, the present writ petition is filed.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the actual tenant in the subject shop since 2006 and has been paying rents regularly to the 3^rd respondent authorities without any default. The 4^th respondent is no way connected to the subject shop and he has created all false and concocted facts only for the purpose of filing W.P.No.14240 of 2019, which is nothing but suppression of facts and playing fraud on the Court and to occupy the subject shop under the guise of order passed by this Court in W.P.No.14240 of 2019.

¶9

Sri Shaik Karimullah, learned standing counsel for Wakf Board, states that the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy under Section 83 of the Wakf Act to decide the lis involved in the present case. He also submits alternatively that if a detailed representation is made to the 2^nd respondent ventilating his grievance, the same will be considered by the 2^nd respondent and pass appropriate orders based on the record available with Wakf Board. He further submits that this Court passed orders in W.P.No.14240 of

¶10

¶11

2019 directing the 3^rd respondent, the Inspector-Auditor, to receive the demand draft submitted by the petitioner therein/4^th respondent herein towards payment of rent. Receiving demand draft, no way curtails the rights of the respondents to evict the 4^th respondent from the shop as per law. Hence, land encroachment notice is served on the 4^th respondent.

¶12

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of both the learned counsel, and on perusal of the record, this Court, in the interest of justice, felt it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition giving liberty to the petitioner to submit a detailed representation ventilating his grievance to the 2^nd respondent, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a this order. On submission of such representation, the 2^nd respondent shall consider the same as per law and pass appropriate reasoned order, not later than four (4) weeks thereafter and communicate the same to the petitioner.

¶13

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶14

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶15

___________________________ JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

¶16

02-11-2020 anr

¶17

¶18

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

¶19

Writ Petition No. 16406 of 2020

¶20

02-11-2020

¶21

anr

Shaik Muneer v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Muneer v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bupathi Adinarayana and Another Vs Bupathi Sri Venkateswara Rao and 7 Others

Pinjari Shaik Sha Vali, Kurnool Dist. Vs P.P., Hyd and 28 Othrs

M .Ravi kumar Vs The State of Ap

Mandipalli Ramprasad Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B.v.Chandra Sekhara Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gaddam Rambob. Vs Assistant Director of Enforcement