Allowed

N. Maheswar, v. The A.P. State Wakf Board

Telangana HC28 Feb 2013WP/2706/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition, holding that the impugned order was passed without serving notice to the petitioner, violating principles of natural justice under Section 54 of the Wakf Act, 1995. The order was quashed and treated as a show cause notice.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 29.11.2012 was allowed to be set aside, treated as a show cause notice under Section 54(1), and the petitioner was given 15 days to submit an explanation.

N. Maheswar, Vs The A.P. State Wakf Board — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2706 of 2013

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

The petitioner states that he is the owner of house bearing No.1-9-668, admeasuring about 150 square yards, situated at Adikmett, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad. He has explained the source of his title to the property. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the proceedings, dated 29.11.2012, issued by the Chief Executive Officer of the A.P. State Wakf Board, the 1^st respondent herein, under Section 54 (3) of the Wakf Act, 1995 (for short ‘the Act’) requiring him to remove the encroachment over an extent of 16 square yards. The petitioner submits that no notice was served upon him before the impugned order was passed and that the order is violative of principles of natural justice.

¶4

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the 1^st respondent.

¶5

The 1^st respondent initiated proceedings under Section 54 of the Act alleging that the petitioner has encroached into 16 square yards of land pertaining to a Wakf institution, by name Chilla Hzt Mahboob Subhani at Adikmett. Section 54 of the Act mandates that before an order of eviction is passed by the 1^st respondent, notice must be issued. Though it is stated in the impugned order that notice, dated 06.06.2012, under Section 54 (1) of the Act was issued, it was not even mentioned that it was

¶6

served upon the petitioner. Mere issuance would not serve the purpose. The petitioner can be given an opportunity to submit explanation by treating the impugned order itself as show cause notice.

¶7

Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The impugned order shall be treated as show cause notice under Section 54 (1) of the Act and the petitioner shall be entitled to submit explanation within 15 days from today. The 1^st respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereafter. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶8

The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition shall also stand disposed of.

¶9

_____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:28.02.2013

¶10

kdl

N. Maheswar, v. The A.P. State Wakf Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N. Maheswar, v. The A.P. State Wakf Board

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

M/S Madhu Transport, Vs The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology

Sri.Ch.Raja Reddy Vs The Prl.Secretary to Government

Sri Padmavathi Venkateshwara Medical Science Vs The Government of A.P rep.by its

Nanabala Amaranath, Vs Moore Venkata Reddy

The Godavari Fishermen Cooperative Society, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Svec Construction Ltd. Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh