Disposed

Subhania Anjuman Islamiya Bilaspur v. the State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC9 Oct 2013WP/1321/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 read with the relevant provisions governing eviction of a tenant from Wakf property, a two-judge bench while disposing of the petition permitted the petitioner to approach the Sub-Divisional Magistrate for execution of the eviction order.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is permitted to approach the Sub-Divisional Magistrate.

Subhania Anjuman Islamiya Bilaspur Vs the State of… — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2013)

^^=.—~—-.-

c<v^

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR ICHHATTISGARHI

¶5

W.P. No. 132.1 /2003

¶6

PETITIONER SUPHANIAAIS^UMAN ISLAMIA, \SPUR,,/ .-.*•• Fhrough: <W<0:MD. ISMAIL RAZVI, VICE-PRESIDENT, R/o Infront ofAjeet Hotel, Telipara, Bilaspur. ^s^" Vs RESPONDENTS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Through: Addl.Chief Secretary, Deptt. of Home, DK Bhavan, Raipur (CG). SUB-DIV1SIONAL MAGISTRATE, Bilaspur Sub-Division, Bilaspur (CG). 3) ^YAZALI, S/o Latept^abaksh, Aged 54 years, Tailor Master, Prop. Naaz Tailors, R/o Idgah Chowk, Bijaspur. Tahsil^Ct Dist Bilgs^ur (CG). ^' PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

•^v

€^

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶11

SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Pritinker Diwaker

¶12

W.P.No.1321/2003

¶13

PETITIONER

¶14

SubhaniaAnjuman Islamia Bilaspur

¶15

VERSUS

¶16

RESPONDENTS

¶17

State of Chhattisgarh and others

¶18

Shri Ashish Shrivastava counsel for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao Dy. AG for respondents No.land 2. Shri Devendra Pratap Singh counsel for respondent No. 3.

¶19

ORDER

¶20

(09.10.2013)

¶21

According to the petitioner, private respondent is its tenant and the property belongs to Wakf situate at Idgah Chowk, Bilaspur.

¶22

On 17.7.2001 Chief Executive Officer of the erstwhile M.P. Wakf Board, Bhopal has passed an order for eviction of private respondent but still the said order has not been complied with by him nor the State Authorities in particular the Sub Divisional Magistrate (respondent No.2) is helping the petitioner in executing the said order.

¶23

Case of respondents No. 1 and 2 is that the petitioner has not approached the Sub Divisional Magistrate and therefore question of helping it does not arise.

¶24

Adopting the stand of the State Government it has been argued by the counsel for the private^{respondentthattheorderof}

¶25

-"~?^

¶26

^- ^T-

¶27

eviction of private respondent has been passed without any lawful authority.

¶28

Counsel for the petitioner submits that purpose of filing this petition would be served if the petitioner is permitted to approach respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 is directed to decide the application of the petitioner so that the order of Wakf Board can be executed.

¶29

State counsel submits that it is not only the petitioner who can approach respondent No.2 but the Chief Executive Officer can also approach it and only then the order of Wakf Board can be executed.

¶30

Be that as it may, this petition is disposed of permitting the petitionerto approach respondent No.2. In the event offiling any application by the petitioner before respondent No.2, it may decide the same as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶31

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and respondent No.2 would be at liberty to decide the application filed by the petitioner in accordance with law. - -

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

Pritinker Diwakar Judge

¶34

Subhania Anjuman Islamiya Bilaspur v. the State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhania Anjuman Islamiya Bilaspur v. the State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

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

Sammukh Prasad Pandey Vs Bhagwati Prasad

Mariam Education Welfare Society Vs National Council of Teacher Edu.and Ors.

Manohar Singh And Ors. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Subhania Anjuman Islamia Bilaspur Vs the State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

M/S Sunil Sponge Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Mohd.Zakir Sheikh Vs Surjit Kaur and Others