THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3846 of 2008 Date: 28.02.2008 Between: Smt.Afsari Begum and another … Petitioners AND The State of A.P., Revenue Divisional Officer & Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hyderabad. And others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Syed Shareef Ahmed Counsel for respondents: Sri Abdul Najeeb Khan, Standing Counsel HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3846 of 2008 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside order dated 20.7.2007 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer – respondent No.1 served on the petitioners on 14.2.2008, whereby their eviction was ordered. Heard Sri Syed Shareef Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Abdul Najeeb Khan, learned Standing Counsel for the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board. This writ petition came up on two earlier occasions and was adjourned at the instance of the learned Standing Counsel. Today, the learned Standing Counsel on instructions submitted that the impugned order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad Division is based on order dated 8.6.2001 passed by the Chief Executive Officer of the Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board against the father of petitioner No.1, who was no more on the date when the said order was passed, and also against petitioner No.2. Learned Standing Counsel fairly states that the order to the extent of the father of petitioner No.1 - Syed Habeeb is liable to be set aside and consequently the impugned order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer and Sub-Divisional Magistrate is also liable to be set aside. In view of this submission, the writ petition to the extent of petitioner No.1, against whom the order under Section 55 of the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Act, 1995 (for short “the Act”) is passed by Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad Division is set aside. This order however, does not preclude the Chief Executive Officer of respondent No.3 – Wakf Board and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad from initiating appropriate proceedings afresh. With regard to the order passed against petitioner No.2, his grievance is that he was not served either notice under section 54(1) of the Act or order passed under Section 54(3) of the Act and therefore, the order passed under Section 55 of the Act by the Revenue Divisional Officer which is impugned in this writ petition cannot be sustained. Learned Standing Counsel says that the notice under Section 54(1) of the Act was served by affixture to petitioner No.2 and a copy of order passed under Section 54(3) was served on him. In the light of the complaint of petitioner No.2 that he did not receive the order and having regard to the fact that he has an appropriate remedy by way of appeal to the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Tribunal under Section 54(4) of the Act, the Chief Executive Officer of respondent No.3 Wakf Board is directed to serve a copy of the order passed under Section 54(3) of the Act within a period of one week from today. On receipt of the order, liberty is given to petitioner No.2 to approach the Wakf Tribunal by initiating appropriate proceedings. To enable petitioner No.2 to do so, the parties are directed to maintain status quo with respect to possession for a period of four weeks. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.5020 of 2008 filed by the petitioners seeking interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. ___________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:28.02.2008 Note: Issue c.c. in two days. B/o. mdaa