Disposed

Shaik Shakir Basha, v. Prl.Secy., Social Welfare dept., State of A.P.

Andhra Pradesh HC20 Nov 2023WP/22529/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice Ninala Jayasurya disposed of a writ petition challenging threats to dispossess petitioners from ancestral lands claimed as Waqf. The Court ordered respondents to refrain from coercive action without following due legal process.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents not to take coercive action in respect of the lands except by following due process of law.

Shaik Shakir Basha, Vs Prl.Secy., Social Welfare… — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No.22529 of 2018

¶3

Between:-

¶4

Shaik Shakir Basha and another …. Petitioners

¶5

And

¶6

The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary, Minorities & Wakf Department and two others.

¶7

…. Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners :Mr.D.Krishna Murthy Counsel for the Respondents : G.P. for Social Welfare Mr. Mohd.Gayasuddin

¶8

ORDER :

¶9

This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to declare the action of the 3^rd respondent in threatening to dispossess the petitioners from their lawful possession in respect of the lands, totally admeasuring Ac.14-28 cents, in Sy.No.88 of Gargeyapuram village, Kurnool Mandal and District, without following the due process of law, as illegal, arbitrary etc., and consequently to direct the 3^rd respondent and his subordinates not to take any coercive steps without following the due process of law.

¶10

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners along with their family members have succeeded the lands admeasuring Ac.2.78 cents, Ac.3.00 cents, Ac.5.50 cents and Ac.3.00 cents, totally admeasuring Ac.14.28 cents, in Sy.No.88 of Gargeyapuram village of Kurnool Mandal and District from their ancestors, who acquired the same by virtue of four different registered documents in the years 1907, 1924, 1945 and 1961 respectively and are in lawful possession and enjoyment of same by doing cultivation of the said lands. While the things stood thus, on 13.06.2018 the 3^rd respondent, along with his subordinates, came to the subject property claiming the subject lands belong to Waqf Board, threatened them to handover the possession. Learned counsel further submitted that the 3^rd respondent, without perusing the documents produced by the petitioners, left the site threatening to take over the possession of the lands by using their official force within a week. Learned counsel further submitted that if at all

¶12

the subject lands are required for any public purposes, the Government should follow the procedure prescribed under the

¶13

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. He

¶14

¶15

submits that as there is a threat of dispossession, the petitioners filed the present Writ Petition.

¶16

Learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 while referring to the contents of the counter affidavit inter alia, submitted that Under Sections 51, 52 and 54 of the Waqf Act, 1995, Waqf Board is empowered to initiate action against the persons who are in unlawful occupation of Waqf Lands. He submits that the subject lands were notified as Waqf lands in A.P. Gazette No.2060/43-A, dated 24.10.1963, on the basis of

¶17

the Survey Commissioners Report. He further submits that once the Gazette notification is issued in respect of the Waqfs, the interested persons had to challenge the same under Section 6 of the Waqf Act, but neither the petitioners nor their predecessors have, at any time, challenged the same within a period of one year, thereby the claim of the petitioners is time barred. However, in the penultimate paragraph of the counter affidavit it is stated that the Waqf Board in exercise of the statutory provisions would take steps to evict the illegal occupants. The same has been reiterated by the learned standing counsel for the Waqf Board in the Court that any

¶18

¶19

action in respect of the subject matter property would be only by following due procedure contemplated under law.

¶20

In the light of the averments made in the counter affidavit and as reiterated by the learned standing counsel for the Waqf Board, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents not to take coercive action in respect of the subject

¶21

lands, except by following due process of law. No costs.

¶22

Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any,

¶23

shall stand closed.

¶24

________________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J

¶25

Date:20.11.2023 Ssv

Shaik Shakir Basha, v. Prl.Secy., Social Welfare dept., State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Shakir Basha, v. Prl.Secy., Social Welfare dept., State of A.P.

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

Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate bank), Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

State Bank of India Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

State Bank of India Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kotu Prabhakara Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Yelamanchili Sandhya Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Nannapuneni Venkateswarlu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh