Allowed

Muslim Khabrasthan Committee, rep. by its President v. The District Collector

Telangana HC19 Jan 2016WP/9705/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 226, the Court disposed of the matter by directing the District Collector to consider the petitioner's representation regarding a disputed graveyard land at Kurkuda village, noting that the land may be Wakf property.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 1st respondent-District Collector, Nalgonda, to consider the representation dated 17.01.2011 in accordance with law at the earliest.

Muslim Khabrasthan Committee, rep. by its President Vs… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.9705 OF 2011

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the unofficial respondents and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

¶5

2. The present writ petition came to be filed seeking issuance of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the official respondents in protecting the graveyard admeasuring half acre in Sy.No.1 situated at Kurkuda village, Chivemla Mandal, Nalgonda District, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently, to direct the official respondents to consider the representations made by the petitioner on 29.03.2011 and 30.03.2011.

¶6

3. The averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are as under:

¶7

The grave yard property described above was notified as wakf property and the same was published in the Gazette on 01.03.1990 at Sl.No.5977. When the unofficial respondents were levelling the land by interfering with the graveyard, with intent to make it into plots, the petitioner made a representation to the 1^st respondent -District Collector to protect the grave yard. The issue was also brought to the notice of respondent No.5 i.e., Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board. The Inspector Auditor forwarded a letter, dated 27.01.2011, to the Tahsildar, Chivemla Mandal, directing him to take steps to stop the cleaning work on the wakf land so as to protect the grave yard and take serious action against the persons responsible for the same. Inaction on the part

¶8

of the authorities lead to filing of the present writ petition.

¶9

4. A counter came to be filed by the 3^rd respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, disputing the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. It is further stated that the said property is not wakf property and the boundaries mentioned in the Gazette notification do not talley with the boundaries existing. It is said that the land particulars mentioned in Gazette notification do not refer to the survey number.

¶10

5. However, respondent No.5 i.e., A.P. Wakf Board in its counter states that the said property is a wakf property as the same was published in Andhra Pradesh Gazette No.9-A, dated 02.03.1990 at Sl.No.15977.

¶11

6. The unofficial respondents, who got themselves impleaded as respondent Nos.7 and 8, filed their counter stating that they are in possession of the land in question since many years and the revenue records also show their possession over the property. It is further stated that Gurram Prathapa Reddy is the original owner of the property in dispute and the same was donated to his own daughter-in-law by name Gurram Vijaya Laxmi, who is their vendor, and her name was also mutated in the revenue records. It is further stated that now the lands are converted into residential plots.

¶12

7. Though various grounds are raised in the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner restricts her prayer seeking a direction to the Collector to dispose of the representation, dated 17.01.2011 made to the District Collector seeking protection of the

¶13

land, which is subject matter of the dispute in the present writ petition.

¶14

8. Without going into the merits of the case and having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 1^st respondent-District Collector, Nalgonda, to consider the representation, dated 17.01.2011, in accordance with law, at the earliest. It is needless to mention that the petitioner is also at liberty to make a suitable application to the Wakf Board, in which event, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law after hearing all the aggrieved persons including the unofficial respondents herein.

¶15

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶16

_______________________ JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶17

Date:19.01.2016 INL

Muslim Khabrasthan Committee, rep. by its President v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muslim Khabrasthan Committee, rep. by its President v. The District Collector

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

Msvs Durga Prasad and Another Vs State Represented by Itsd P.P.

Sri Madduru Uma Shankar Vs The State of Telangana

Y. Shiva Koteshwar Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mannem Laxminarayana, Vs State of Ap

Pale Madhav Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

K. Suresh Kumar, Vs The State of Telangana