IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 10914 of 2008 Between: 1 Sri Vapurui Sathyanarayana Babu, S/o. Sri Vepuri Ratha Rao, HIndu, R/o. Pedavegi Mandal, Eluru, West Godavari District. 2 Sri Panuganti Amarnath Baba, S/o. Sri Surya Rao, HIndu, R/o. Pedavegi Mandal, Eluru, West Godavari District. 3 Sri Chalamala Setty Ravi KUmar, S/o. Sri Radha Krishna Rao, HIndu, R/o. Pedavegi Mandal, Eluru, West Godavari District. 4 Sri Chintalapati Somaraju, S/o. Sri Sita Ramaraju, Hindu, R/o. Pedavegi Mandal, Eluru, West Godavari District. 5 Sri Gorinta Srinviasa Raju, S/o. Sri Gorinta Suryanarayana Raju, Hindu, R/o. Pedavegi Mandal, Eluru, West Godavari District. 6 sri Alluri Venkata Sathya Suryanarayana Raju, S/o. Sri Rama Raju, R/o. Pedavegi Mandal, Eluru, West Godavari District. 7 Sri Vemulamanda Nara Narayana Raju, S/o. Sri Sathanarayana Raju, Hindu, R/o. Pedavegi Mandal, Eluru, West Godavari District. 8 Sri Vamulamanda Sathyanarayana Raju, S/o. Sri Subbar Raju, R/o. Pedavegi Mandal, Eluru, West Godavari District. 9 Sri Gadi Raju Ranga Raju, S/o. Sri Sita Rama Raju, Hindu, R/o. Pedavegi Mandal, Eluru, West Godavari District. 10 Sri Kotturi Surapu Raju, S/o. Sri Venkata Raju, R/o. Pedavegi Mandal, Eluru, West Godavari District. 11 Sri Kalidandi Sathyanarayana Raju, S/o. Sri Kalidandi Krishnam Raju, Hindu, R/o. Pedavegi Mandal, Eluru, West Godavari District. 12 Sri Endukari Sathyanarayana Raju, S/o. Sri Rama Raju, Hindu, R/o. Pedavegi Mandal, Eluru, West Godavari District. 13 Sri Vemulamanda Dharma Raju, S/o. Sri Sathyanarayana Raju, Hindu, R/o. Pedavegi Mandal, Eluru, West Godavari District. 14 Sri Vemulamanda Krishnam Raju, S/o. Sri Sathyanarayana Raju, Hindu, R/o. Pedavegi Mandal, Eluru, West Godavari District. 15 Sri Parichalla Venkata Narasimha Raju, S/o. Sri Hanumantha Raju, Hindu, R/o. Pedavegi Mandal, Eluru, West Godavari District. 16 Sri Gorinta Suryanarayana Raju, S/o. Sri Gorinta Buich Raju, Hindu, R/o. Pedavegi Mandal, Eluru, West Godavari District. 17 Sri Addanki Sriramachandra Murthi, S/o. Sri Addanki Naga Raju, Hindu, R/o. Pedavegi Mandal, Eluru, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The A.P. State Wakf Board, Rep. by the Chief Executive Officer, Hyderabad. 2 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Eluru, West Godavari District. 3 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the District Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru. 4 Tahsildar, Pedavegi, West Godavari District, Eluru. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue order, direction or Writ one in the nature of Certiorari by calling the records relating to the orders passed in Case No. 1167/2004/A dated 03-05-2008 passed by the 2nd Respondent and quash the same as the same is arbitrary, illegal and violation of principles of natural justice, contrary to provisions of Wakf Act 1995 and the A.P. Wakf Rules 2000 and also Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the Petitioners :MR.A.NARASIMHA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: MR.WASIM AHMED KHAN The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioners claim to have purchased diﬀerent extents of land in R.S.Nos.131/2 and 135 of Dondapadu Village, Pedavegi Mandal, West Godavari District, admeasuring Acs.23.77 cents. The Chief Executive Oﬃcer, A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad, the ﬁrst respondent herein, addressed a letter to the District Collector, the third respondent herein, stating, inter alia, that the land in the said survey numbers belongs to wakf and that the petitioners herein are encroachers. A request was made for eviction of the petitioners by initiating proceedings under Section 52 of the Wakf Act, 1995 (for short ‘the Act’). The Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Eluru, the second respondent herein, passed orders, dated 03.05.2008, directing eviction of the petitioners. Complaining that the Tahasildar, the fourth respondent herein, started interfering with their possession, the petitioners approached this Court. They also challenge the very validity of the proceedings, dated 03.05.2008. According to them, the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer is not conferred with the power and even where the District Collector exercises powers under Section 52 of the Act, an order is to be passed giving not less than 30 days of time for the occupants of the land, either to vacate the same or to avail the remedy of appeal or suit. Other grounds are also urged. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. In the impugned order, dated 03.05.2008, passed by the second respondent, reference is made to the request made by the ﬁrst and third respondents. The latter is said to have directed the second respondent to take action. Section 52 of the Act confers power only upon the District Collector to take steps for eviction of the encroachers. Adequate safeguards are provided to the persons, who are sought to be evicted. Minimum of 30 days is required to be given to the concerned persons either to vacate the land or to avail the remedies under the Act. The Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer does not ﬁnd place in the scheme of the Act. The authority mentioned under Section 52 of the Act is Collector. There is scope to take Sub-Collector or even Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer within the fold of Collector, in case the deﬁnition is wide enough. The Act does not deﬁne the word ‘Collector’. Rule 22 of the A.P. Wakf Rules, 2000 (for short ‘the Rules’) supplements the procedure to be followed, while exercising the power under Section 52 of the Act. Here again, the word employed is Collector. In Rule 2(c) of the Rules, the word Collector is deﬁned as the authority, who is the district in- charge of revenue administration. The Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer can never be treated as the district in-charge of revenue administration. Therefore, the impugned order is clearly without jurisdiction. Even otherwise, the second respondent committed blatant illegality. The petitioners ﬁled C.C.No.865 of 2008 alleging that the interim orders passed by this Court were violated. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled therein, the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer stated that he passed the order on 03.05.2008 and on the next date, possession was recovered from the petitioners. There cannot be any better instance of an authority arrogating to him the powers, which are not conferred under a statute and to violation all possible norms. The action of the second respondent is liable to be deprecated and he is hereby cautioned to be careful hereafter in exercise of such powers. The petitioners were subjected to unnecessary litigation and the so-called dispossession is nothing but an outrage of the Act. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Respondents 2 and 4 are directed to reinduct the petitioners forthwith, free from any encumbrance. Any default in this regard would be taken serious note of. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ Dt.20.11.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ