HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 10138 of 2004 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner-institution seeks directions by way of Mandamus to declare the inaction on the part of the respondents 2 and 3 in not enforcing the orders passed by the 1st respondent and in taking action for eviction of the encroachers as illegal and arbitrary. The Jamia Mosque situated at Gadivemula, Kurnool District is a registered Wakf covered by the provisions of the Wakf Act, 1995 (for short ‘the Act’). It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the Mutavalli of the Mosque has committed certain irregularities and thereafter, a committee is constituted to manage the affairs of the Wakf. According to the petitioner, during the year 1998, the Managing Committee of the petitioner-Mosque complained about the encroachments over the landed property of the Wakf and also furnished the list of the encroachers to the 1st respondent-Wakf Board. Thereafter, the 1st respondent initiated proceedings against such encroachers under Section 54(3) of the Act and orders were also passed. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of such orders being communicated the respondents 2 and 3, the said respondents are not implementing the said orders, as mandated under Section 55 of the At. Counter affidavits are filed by the respondents. In the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, while referring to the orders passed under Section 54(3) of the Act on 30.6.1999, it is stated that such orders are sent to respondent 2 and 3 seeking delivery of possession of the encroached land to the auditor of the Wakf. The counter also refers to certain reminders given to respondents 2 and 3. The unofficial respondent No.5 also filed a counter affidavit. In his counter, the 5th respondent while denying the various allegations of the petitioner, stated that the petitioner being Vice President of the Mosque has no locus standi to file the writ petition. The 5th respondent further stated that he has not received any notice in pursuance of the proceedings under Section 54 of the Act and he has specifically contended that the petitioner has not disclosed the properties, which are covered by the encroachments. An implead petition, being W.P.M.P. No. 20068 of 2004 is filed by eighteen(18) individuals stating that they are in possession of the house sites for the last several decades and that they never received any notices from the Wakf Board claiming that the schedule mentioned property is a Wakf property. They further state that in the absence of any order being passed by the respondents by issuing prior notice to them and in the absence of such a notice being served upon them, no steps can be taken by the respondents to evict them from the properties in question and they are not bound by such orders passed by the 1st respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. In this case, though the petitioner seeks enforcement of the order dated 30.6.1999 passed by the 1st respondent under Section 54(3) of the Act, but the petitioner did not file a copy of the said order so as to know what are the properties covered by such encroachments and who are the real encroachers. Originally, the writ petition is filed by making the 5th respondent alone as party to the writ petition and the other encroachers were not made as party respondents. Subsequently, the encroachers filed an application in W.P.M.P. No. 20068 of 2004 seeking to implead them as party respondents. They specifically contended that they were not served with any such notice by the Wakf Board nor they were parties to such proceedings. In the absence of a copy of the order dated 30.6.1999 of the 1st respondent being served on such encroachers indicating the encroached properties and in view of the specific contention of the impleaded respondents that no order under Section 54(3) of the Act has been received by them nor served upon them, the petitioner is not entitled to seek any directions for enforcement of the said order against those respondents. I, therefore, do not find any merit in the writ petition for granting the relief sought for by the petitioner. However, it is made clear that if the order passed by the 1st respondent under Section 54(3) of the Act has become final, then this order will not preclude the petitioner-institution from approaching the respondents 2 and 3 for enforcement of the said order by making appropriate representation, enclosing a copy of the order passed by the 1st respondent under Section 54(3) of the Act. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY,J Date: 23rd December, 2010 pnb