Disposed

C.Md. Yakub, v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC3 Jul 2014WP/18258/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court directed the Wakf Board to consider the petitioners' explanation under Section 54(1) before dispossession. It also ordered the Special Officer to decide on the lease representation under Section 56. Forceful dispossession was prohibited unless statutory procedures were followed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Board to consider petitioners' explanation under S. 54(1); direction to consider lease representation under S. 56; prohibition on forceful dispossession without compliance with Act.

C.Md. Yakub, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.18258 OF 2014

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Habeeb-ur-Rehman, learned Standing Counsel for the Board appearing for the respondents.

¶5

Petitioners claim to be in possession of the wakf property as tenants allegedly for 35 years and are running a saw mill. Petitioners filed a representation addressed to the Special Officer, dated 08.05.2014 requesting for execution of the agreement of lease in their favour. One of the grievances in this writ petition is that no orders are being passed on the said representation and the other grievance is that the respondent-Board is trying to physically dispossess the petitioners from the said premises without following due process of law.

¶6

Learned standing counsel for the Board, who takes notice on behalf of the Board, submits that the Board has issued notice under Section 54(1) of the Wakf Act, 1995 (for short, “the Act”), to which petitioners have already given their reply dated 24.06.2014.

¶7

Since the learned counsel for the petitioners seeks a direction that petitioners may not be dispossessed without following due process of law and since the other relief sought for is for consideration of their representation dated 08.05.2014, after hearing learned standing counsel for the Board, both the said grievances can be redressed by the following directions:

¶8

“1. So far as the notice issued by the Wakf Board under Section 54(1) of the Act is concerned, the Board is obliged to consider the explanation or the cause shown by the petitioners, as referred to above, and then take appropriate decision in the matter. However, petitioners shall not be dispossessed forcefully and physically except in accordance with Section 54 and in accordance with the scheme under the Act.

¶9

2. Insofar as the petitioners’ representation for grant

¶10

of lease is concerned, their representation, dated 08.05.2014, shall be considered by the Board in terms of Section 56 of the Act and in accordance with the Rules framed under the Act and appropriate decision in that regard shall be taken by the Special Officer and communicate it to the petitioners.”

¶11

With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶12

VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶13

July 3, 2014 LMV

C.Md. Yakub, v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Md. Yakub, v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

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

Captain Ikram a.Kaleem Vs State of Telangana, Represented through its Secretary

Bandi Shanker s/o Rajaiah Vs The Government of Telangana State

Smt. a. Chandrakala, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. M. Anjana Devi, Vs The District Collector

Yelampally Padma Vs The District Revenue Officer

Mr.N.Veershetty Vs The District Collector, Medak District at Sangareddy