IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OFAPRIL, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.7209 of 2008 Between: The Managing Committee of Masjid & Dargah Shareef Hazrath Syed Zaheeruddin Laleemullah (Arab Shah Baba), Regd. No.153/RR/K/2003, approved by APSW Board, Balanagar, Behind Shobana Colony, Ranga Reddy District, reptd., by its President-Mohd. Ousuf. … Petitioner AND Government of Andhra Pradesh, Minorities Welfare (WAKF-III) department, reptd., by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad and six others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Y.Rama Rao. Counsel for the respondents: None for R.1 and R.2 Asst.Govt. Pleader for Home for R.3 to R.6 Sri S.M.Subhani for R.7. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents 5 and 6 in interfering with the construction of compound wall around the petitioner’s Mosque situated at Shobana Colony, Balanagar village, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 25 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to respondents 5 and 6 not to interfere with the construction of compound wall around the said Mosque. Heard Sri Y.Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home and perused the record. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the petitioner averred that a dispute arose between two communities; that respondent No.3 convened a joint meeting on 14-10-2006 at 10-30 A.M. in the presence of the Commissioner, Kukatpally Municipality, Assitant Commissioner of Police and the Circle Inspector of Police, Balanagar; and that in the said meeting a settlement was arrived at between the two communities, according to which the petitioner was asked to leave 29’ from the road boundary as per the Master Plan and to keep the entrance gate at the North-East side so as to enable the Hindus to use the path way to observe their customs before cremation. The petitioner claims that the Government by Memo No.3991/WAKF.III/A.2/2006-08, dated 20-12-2007 granted permission for construction of compound wall and directed respondents 2 and 4 to provide necessary assistance, and that respondent No.2 by letter dated 3-2-2008 instructed respondent No.4 to provide necessary assistance/protection to construct the compound wall. The petitioner alleged that in pursuance of the said permission, it started construction of the compound wall by dumping the material at the Darga, and that respondents 5 and 6 instead of providing assistance to the petitioner for completion of construction of the compound wall, started interfering with the construction activity on the ground of filing of objections to the said construction. The petitioner also pleaded that when a Committee, by name, Hindu Graveyard Protection Committee, filed Writ Petition No.23689 of 2006 against the petitioner-Darga, this Court by order dated 15-11-2006 dismissed the said Writ Petition relegating the parties to civil Court. The grievance of the petitioner is that it took exception to interference by respondents 5 and 6 to the construction of compound wall by the petitioner. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, stated that one Sri Syed Azeez Pasha applied to respondent No.4 for Police protection and that with reference to the said request, he referred the matter the Tahsildar, Balanagar, on 6-2-2008 to fix up the boundaries. She further stated that the report of the Tahsildar is awaited and that the Police are not interfering with the petitioner’s activity. From the averments contained in the affidavit, it is clear that disputes persist between the petitioner and the people belonging to the Hindu community over the land, around which the petitioner is seeking to raise a compound wall. The petitioner, however, claims that a settlement was arrived at in the presence of respondent No.3 on 14-10-2006. Since the petitioner did not make the people belonging to the other community, who are allegedly parties to the said settlement, the veracity of this claim cannot be adjudicated in this Writ Petition. If any such settlement is arrived at and the Hindu community is raising no objections, I do not see any reason for the respondents to object to the construction of compound wall by the petitioner. If, on the other hand, the disputes still persist, it is not possible for this Court to direct the Police to stay away from interference when two groups quarrel over the issue of raising of the compound wall, because that may lead to law and order problem. Under these circumstances, respondent No.4 is directed to examine the issue by summoning the petitioner and the people representing the Hindu community and resolve the issue. If both the parties agree for the course, which the petitioner claims to have been arrived at in the presence of respondent No.3 on 14-10-2006, he shall direct the Police not to interfere with the construction of the compound wall. If, on the other hand, the disputes persist, the appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to approach the civil court of competent jurisdiction and get the issue resolved. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 10-4-2008 MNR