IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT APPEAL NO : 165 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 08/02/2008 in WP NO : 2031 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Mr. Mohd Farooq Ali Khan S/o Late Mohd Ahmed Ali Khan 2 Mr. Mohd Mukaram Ali Khan S/o Late mohd Ahmed Ali Khan 3 Mr. Mohd, Azan Lai khan S/o Late mohd Ahmed Ali Khan 4 Mr. Mohd Amjad Ali Khan S/o Late mohd Ahmed Ali Khan 5 Mr. Mohd Basit Ali Khan S/o Late mohd Ahmed Ali Khan 6 Mr. Mohd. Mouzam Ali Khan S/o Late mohd Ahmed Ali Khan All R/o H. No. 17-3-101/3, Yakutpura, Imambada, Hydeabad). ..... APPELLANT(S) AND 1 A.P. State Wakf Board rep byits Chief Executive Officer, nampally, Hyderabad. 2 Revenue Divisional Officer, and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hyderabad, Division 3 Tahsildar Charminar mandal, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the AppellantS:MR.MIRZASAFIULLA BAIG Counsel for the Respondent No.: (SC FOR WAKF BOARD)ABDUL NAJEEB KHAN The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per Shri Anil R. Dave, CJ) In this appeal, the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.2031 of 2008 dated 8.2.2008 has been challenged. The petition has been rejected by the learned single Judge on the ground that the appellants-petitioners did not exhaust an equally efficacious alternative remedy available to them at law. We are in agreement with the view expressed by the learned single Judge. However, Sri Mirza Safiulla Baig, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants, has submitted that the appellants-petitioners have not received a copy of the order passed under Section 54 (3) of the Wakf Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). On the other hand, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent- authorities, has submitted that the said order was sent to the appellants by Registered Post Acknowledgment due, but as the appellants refused, a copy of the order had been pasted at the premises in question. Be that as it may, we direct Respondent No.1-Chief Executive Officer, Wakf Board, to furnish another copy of the order passed under Section 54 (3) of the Act to Appellant No.1 by Registered Post Acknowledgment due, within one week from today and the learned Advocate appearing for the Appellants has assured this Court that the said order would be accepted by or on behalf of Appellant No.1. In the aforesaid circumstances, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants, seeks permission to withdraw the Appeal, so as to approach the Tribunal constituted under the Act, for challenging validity of the order passed under Section 54 (3) of the Act. Permission granted. The Appeal stands disposed of as withdrawn with no order as to costs. The order directing maintenance of status-quo passed by the learned single Judge is extended up to four weeks from today. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J DATE: 21-02-2008 CVM To, 1 The District Collector, krishna District at Machilipatnam, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 2 The Joint Collector, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 3 The Land Acquisition Officer, cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Bandar, Krishna District at Machilipatnam. 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Kruthivennu Mandal, Krishna District.