THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.14665 OF 2004 July 06, 2010 Between: Samala Rama Swamy, S/o.Late S.R.Mallaiah … Petitioner And The Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad, rep., by its Chief Executive Officer, Wakf Board, Razak Manzil, Public Garden Road, Hyderabad and another ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.14665 of 2004 ORDER: The petitioner is statedly in possession of land admeasuring 1744.36 square yards bearing Municipal No.7-10-910, Station Road, Nizamabad. The case of the petitioner is that he and his father purchased the land under twelve separate sale deeds dated 20.3.1981 and 11.1.1982 from the legal heirs of the original owner, Mohd Khaleeluddin Hussain. The land was leased out by Mohd. Khaleeluddin Hussain to ESSO Standard Inc., and subsequently to Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) dealder. The petitioner and his father instituted O.S.No.16 of 1997 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad for recovery of possession. During the pendency of suit, father died on 11.2.1998. The suit was decreed on 02.01.2003. It is also the case of the petitioner that the Appeal Suit being A.S.No.294 of 2003 and subsequently, the Civil Appeal being No.8080-8081 of 2003 before the Supreme Court went against HPCL. Thereafter, the petitioner filed E.P.No.46 of 2004 and took possession through Court. There is no doubt that the Wakf Board is not a party to the suit. It appears that on 13.08.2004, the District Revenue Officer (DRO), Nizamabad – second respondent herein, visited the property and proclaimed that the land in possession of the petitioner is Wakf property and therefore the petitioner should be evicted. In this background, the present Writ Petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in threatening to dispossess the petitioner from the subject land as illegal and arbitrary. The Chief Executive Officer of the first respondent – Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board, filed a counter affidavit. It is the case of the Wakf Board that the subject land is a Sarai Qazi meant for giving shelter to the travelers, that Mr. Qazi Mohd.Asifuddin, son of Qazi Mohd.Khaleeluddin was given towliath and that the subject property was never sold or transferred or alienated or leased out to anybody. It is further stated in the counter affidavit as under. … the contention of the petitioner in this para that the respondent Board is proposing to evict the petitioner from the schedule property high handedly and forcibly is false and baseless, it is only an apprehension of the petitioner that the respondents would take law into their hands and forcefully evict the petitioner from the schedule property, but the fact is that the respondent is a statutory body and will follow due process of law for eviction of the petitioner from the schedule property. … it is to state that this respondent do not know the fact of visit of respondent No.2, but this respondent is aware of the law of land and will invoke proper proceedings under Section 54 of the Wakf Act, 1995 to evict the encroacher from the Wakf land, which is surveyed as per the statute. The respondent Board have already initiated the proceedings under Article 54 of the Act of 1995 by issuing notices to the encroachers of the subject land to evict them. As such the question of evicting of the petitioner from the suit schedule property by force do not arise. The petitioner filed reply affidavit denying the counter averments that the Wakf Board issued notices under Section 54(2) of the Wakf Act, 1995 (the Act). Be that as it is, though there is a claim by the Wakf Board, at present the same cannot be gone into. The writ petition is filed with a limited relief to protect possession. There cannot be any two opinions that when a person is in possession of the land, whether it is legally valid or not, he can be dispossessed by following due process of law. The due process of law is ordained by a statute ought to be followed. In that view of the matter, though both the counsel raised different issues, this Court declines to go into all these, leaving the parties to raise such pleas before appropriate forum. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of observing that unless and until due process of law is followed, the petitioner cannot be dispossessed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) July 06, 2010. YS