IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND SIX P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH * * * WP.No.4024 OF 2006 Between: A.Madhusudhan Rao … Petitioner Versus The Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board, Represented by its Chief Executive Officer, Hyderabad & Anr. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri V.V.Prabhakara Rao Counsel for the Respondents: Sri M.A.Rafi for R.1 Sri Abdul Muqueeth Qureshi for R2 O R D E R : Initially, the Petitioner was granted lease of Wakf property admeasuring 250 sq.yards for a period of thirty years by executing separate two lease deeds bearing document nos.1937/1977 dated 22-2-1977 and 1353/1978 dated 10-8- 1978 by the muttawali. As the competent authority to grant lease in respect of the wakf properties is the Wakf Board, the petitioner approached the Wakf Board and after negotiations and obtaining the deposit of a sum of Rs.3,00,000-00 towards non-refundable deposits and on the agreed rent of Rs.5,000-00 per month and after taking two months advance of Rs.10,000-00, the lease for a period of 11 months was granted by order dated 26-7-2005, which was extended for a period of three years by an order dated 3-9-2005. Thus, it is stated that the petitioner has got subsisting lease upto 02-9-2008. It is stated that during the subsistence of lease period the first respondent by impugned order dated 15-2-2006 cancelled the lease granted earlier vide Proceedings dated 26-7-2005 as extended by an order dated 03-9- 2005. The petitioner questions the said order of cancellation of the lease granted in favour of them. The learned counsel for the respondents submit that for determination of any dispute, question or other matter relating to wakf property, the petitioner has alternate efficacious remedy to question the same before the Tribunal constituted under section 83 of the Wakf Act, and therefore, in view of the alternate remedy the petitioner is not entitled to question the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that cancellation of lease without giving any notice unilaterally and without following due procedure prescribed under law is illegal and arbitrary, and therefore, the petitioner may not be relegated to avail the alternate remedy to question the same before the Tribunal constituted under section 83 of the Wakf Act. In view of the fact that all the disputes and other matters relating to Wakf Property have to be resolved by the Wakf Tribunal under section 83 of the Wakf Act. I am not inclined to admit this writ petition. However, I consider it appropriate to direct the petitioner to approach the Tribunal and seek interim relief and the respondents are directed to maintain statusquo obtaining as on today, for a period of three weeks. With the above direction, the writ petition is accordingly disposed of at the admission stage. No costs. MARCH 09th, 2006. ------------------------ I s L. V. ESWARAIAH , J. NB: CC in two days. B/o. IsL.