IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 5009 of 2008 Between: The Managing Committee of Ramachandrapuram Old Mosque, HIG, Phase-I, BHEL Madhvnagar, Medak District, rep. by its Secretary, Mohd Owais Siddique S/o. Late Mohd. Idries, age: 55, R/o. R.C.Puram, Medak District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Dy. Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Ramachandrapuram Division, Hyderabad-32. 3 Bharat Heavy Elecricals Ltd., R.C.Puram, Medak District, rep. by Executive Disrector, Ramacchandrapuram, Hyderabad-32. 4 The State of A.P.rep. by its Seceretary, Minority Welfare ( Wakf ) Dapartment, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad. 5 The Collector, Medak District at Sangareddy 6 The A.P.Sate Wakf Board, rep. by its Chief executive Officer, Opp: Public Garden, Nampally, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st & 2nd respondent in trying to construct compound wall over the land in Sy.No. 254 attached to a Wakf institution inspite of the letter dated 15.12.2007 addressed by the 3rd respondent stating not to construct as the matter is pending consideration before this Hon'ble Court as being illegal, arbitrary, capricious and malafide and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner:MRSYED SHAREEF AHMED Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.KALPANA EKBOTE The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 5009 of 2008 ORDER: 1. The present writ petition has been instituted seeking a writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the 1st and 2nd respondents in trying to construct a compound wall over the land in Survey No. 254 attached to a Wakf Institution in spite of the letter, dated 15-12-2007 addressed by the 3rd respondent as illegal. 2. Since learned standing counsel for BHEL Sri S.V. Bhatt had taken notice on behalf of the 3rd respondent and the learned standing counsel for the 1st respondent-Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, is readily available, I called for a status report in the matter. On behalf of the 3rd respondent it’s Township Administrator/Estate Officer had filed a detailed counter affidavit in the matter. 3. It is worthy to notice what has been set out in Para 5 of the said affidavit. “In reply to paragraph 3 of the affidavit it is submitted that it is true that officials of 2nd respondent visited the subject land in question for construction of compound wall and park etc., immediately the answering respondent Estate Office vide letter dt. 15/12/2007 informed the 2nd Respondent that the said land belongs to BHEL and requested them not to make any constructions in the said land. Accordingly, no construction activity has been made so far and the said land is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the answering Respondent as on today. It is presumed from the continued silence of Respondent No.1 that they would not indulge in unauthorized acts. The petitioner has no business to interfere with the management of land belonging to BHEL. It is further submitted that after establishment of BHEL factory, township and other facilities etc., the entire land has been declared as Public premises and an Estate Officer has also been appointed under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of un- authorized Occupants) Act, 1971 by the Government of India”. 4. In view of measures taken by the 3rd respondent and in view of realization of the 1st and 2nd respondents not to deal with the land in question independently, without necessary approval of the 3rd respondent, the question of considering this writ petition, for grant of the relief sought for therein would not arise when no action to establish a park or a compound wall is taken up by Respondents No. 1 and 2. 5. In this view of the matter, no further orders are needed. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent has already explained, the steps and measures taken by it to preserve and protect the property in question adequately. 6. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________________________ Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao 24th March, 2008 KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 5009 of 2008 24th March, 2008