Shaik Mahaboob Basha Vs the State of Ap

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 144 OF 2025

¶6

Between:

¶7

Shaik Mahaboob Basha, S/o Shaik Khaja Mohiddin, Aged about 64 years, H.No 3/430, Byrmal Street Near Bus Stand, Nandyal, Nandyal District-518501.

¶8

Shaik Shameemuddin, S/o Shaik Khaja Mohiddin, Aged about 58 years, H.No 3/430, Byrmal Street, Near Bus Stand, Nandyal, Nandyal District518501.

¶9

Shaik Shakeeluddin, S/o Shaik Khaja Mohiddin, Aged about 54 years, H.No 3/430, Byrmal Street, Near Bus Stand, Nandyal, Nandyal District518501.

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Minorities Welfare Department IDM-I, Secretariat, Amaravati,^Guntur District.

¶13

The Andhra Pradesh State Waqf Board, Represented by its Chief Executive Officer 4th Floor, Imdadghar, Opp.Kaleswarao Market, Vijayawada.

¶14

The Inspector Auditor, Waqfs Board, Nandyal, Nandyal^District.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased the action of the Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.3 in trying to dispossess the petitioner from their land to an extent of Ac.0.04

¶17

Cents, in Survey No. 695/7, Nandyal Municipal No.25, Nandyal, Nandyal District without following the due procedure of law contemplated under Section 54 of the Waqf Act, 1995 and without serving the notice as mandated under Rule 53 of AP Waqf Rules, 2023 as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and as consequently direct the Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.3 not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the land.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2Q2fi

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.3 and their officials not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the land to an extent of Ac.0.04 cents, in Survey No. 695/7, Nandyal Municipal No.25, Nandyal, Nandyal District pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI MALLAVELLI NAGA SAI LALITH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: SRI SHAIK KHAJA BASHA, SC

¶21

FOR AP WAQF BOARD

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

f

¶24

APHC010003252025

¶25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3329] AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶26

FRIDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT

¶27

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶28

WRIT PETITION NO: 144/2025

¶29

Between:

¶30

Shaik Mahaboob Basha and Others ...PETITIONER{S)

¶31

AND

¶32

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶33

The State Of Ap and Others

¶34

Counsel for the Petltioner(S):

¶35

1.MALLAVELLI NAGA SAI LALITH KUMAR

¶36

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶37

1.GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE

f

2

V'

'

¶42

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENAKTESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶43

WRIT PETITION N0.144 OF 2025

¶44

This Court made the following

¶45

ORDER:

¶46

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the^{Constitutionof}

¶47

India seeking the following relief;

¶48

“to issue an order or a writ, specifically one in the^natureofwrit of mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent^No,2and Respondent No.3 in trying to dispossess the petitioner^from their land to an extent of Ac.004 cents in Survey No.695/7, Nandyal Municipal No.25, Nandyal, Nandyal District without following the due procedure of law as contemplated under Section 54 of the Waqf Act, 1995 and without serving^thenotice as mandated under Rule 53 of AP Waqf Rules, 2023 as^Illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.3 not to interfere with the peaceful^possession of the land and to pass...”

¶49

without 2. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners, touching the merits of the case, requested this Court to issue a direction to the respondents not to dispossess the^{petitionersfrom}

¶50

their land, without following due process of law.

¶51

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare, admitted that the petitioners are continuing in possession^oftheir land and the respondents authorities would follow due^processof law and requested to pass appropriate orders.

¶52

3

¶53

The petitioners’ father purchased the land to an extent of Ac.0.04 cents in survey No.695/7, Nandyal Municipal No.25 Nandyal, Nandyal District from one Sri Shaik Abdul Rasool vide Document No.4046/1968 and thereafter the petitioners’ father gifted the property to the Petitioners vide Document No.5579/2005. Since then the Petitioners are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property without there being any interferences by any^of the Respondents. Now the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 and their officers claiming the land as Waqf land are highhandedly trying to dispossess the Petitioners from their land without having any^right and title over the subject property. Hence the Writ^Petition.

¶54

When the petitioners are in settled possession and enjoyment of the property, the respondents are not entitled to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners and such highhanded action of the respondents would amount to V depriving the petitioners’ violating constitutional right guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, besides^violationof Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Even assuming^foramoment that this petitioners’ possession is illegal, still,^{thepetitionersare} required to be afforded an opportunity before taking^appropriate

// ii

«?

4

action and in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in ‘Rame Gowda (dead) by LRs. v. M.Varadappa Naidu (Dead) by^L.Rs. 1 when the petitioners are in settled possession and enjoyment of the property, they cannot be dispossessed, without following due process of law. Therefore, the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioner from their property, except by due process of law.

¶59