IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 19115 of 2007 Between: 1 Mohd.Hasham Qureshi S/o.Faqeer Mohammed Qureshi R/o.H.No.17-1-130 Imambad,Rain Bazar, Hyderabad 2 Syed Ishaq S/o.Syed Mohamood Ahmed R/o.H.No.17-1-92/8/1 Edi Bazar, Yakathpura Hyderabad 3 Md.Fakhruddin S/o.Md.Sharafuddin R/o.H.No.17-3-186/38, Yakathpura Hyderabad 4 Mohd.Amad S/o.Mohd Ali r/o.H.No.17-7-854 Yakathpura Hyderabad 5 Bismilla Bee W/o.Mohd. Ghouse R/o.H.No.17-3-188/1 Edi Bazar Hyderabad 6 Mohd.Khajaa S/o.Mohd Quasham (Late) R/o.HNo.17-3-188, Edi Bazar, Yakuthpura Hyderabad 7 Khatija Begum W/o.Syed Abdul Rasool r/o.17-3-186/12, Edi Bazar, Hyderabad 8 Md.Shoeb Qureshi S/o.Mohd.Asham Qureshi R/o.18-8-454, Edi Bazar, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONERS AND The AP State Wakf Board, rep.by the Chief Executive officer, Having its office, Haj office, Nampally, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not implementing its own Memo in file No.R2/6203/C1/Rent/2007 dated 19.7.2007 in pursuance of report of the Task Force submitted to the Chief Executive officer, AP Wakf Board, dated 13.7.2007 is illegal, high handed and in violation of Article 14,16,19,and 21 of the Constitution of India Counsel for the Petitioners: MS.K.N.VIJAYA LAXMI Counsel for the Respondent: MR.ABDUL NAJEEB KHAN The Court made the following Order: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.19115 of 2007 ORDER: Petitioners who are eight in number are statedly in possession of wakf property raising separate wooden bunks. The said property belongs to Dargah Zohra Bi Saheba, Edi Bazar, Yakathpura. The respondent initiated action under Section 54 of the Wakf Act, 1995 (the Act, for brevity), and passed orders on 04.06.2002 under Section 54(3) of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners filed O.S.No.3 of 2003 before the State Wafk Tribunal. They also filed I.A.No.24 of 2003 for injunction, which was dismissed. Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 filed C.R.P.No.3077 of 2007 before this Court challenging the order of the Wakf Tribunal in I.A.No.24 of 2003. This Court by order dated 07.09.2007 allowed the Civil Revision Petition and also injunction petition observing that learned Tribunal may dispose of the matter on or before 31.12.2007. In the meanwhile, respondent issued a memo dated 19.07.2007 directing Incharge of Task Force, Inspector Auditor and the Surveyor of Wakf Board to measure the area of each of the petitioners and fix up the rent as per market value of the surrounding area, and suggest non-refundable deposits. On an allegation that the said memo was handed over to the petitioners, the respondent by memo dated 30.07.2007 withdrawing the earlier memo called upon the staff members to show cause as to why action should not be initiated against them. At that stage, petitioners filed the instant writ petition challenging the action of the respondent withdrawing the memo dated 19.07.2007 by subsequent memo dated 30.07.2007. This Court heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for Wakf Board. There cannot be any dispute that protection of wakf property is within the powers of the Chief Executive Officer of the Wakf Board. Indeed, it is he who is vested with the power under Section 54 of the Act to evict the encroachers of wakf properties. In connection with some enquiry if initially the Chief Executive Officer takes a decision to get the property measured for fixation of rents and subsequently withdraws the same for whatever reason, the same cannot be subject matter of a writ petition. Secondly, the petitioners, at least some of them, have already filed O.S.No.3 of 2003 challenging the eviction orders, and therefore, the petitioners can seek all reliefs before the learned Tribunal. The Writ Petition is not a proper remedy. There is no denial that the petitioners are continuing in possession by virtue of the orders of this Court in C.R.P.No.3077 of 2007. Till the Wakf Tribunal disposes of the suit, if not already disposed of, petitioners cannot be dispossessed. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 05.12.2008 vs To 1. The AP State Wakf Board, rep.by the Chief Executive officer, Having its office, Haj office, Nampally, Hyderabad 2. 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK}