IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 3954 of 2008 Between: Isha Amar Singh S/o. Late Sri Lokman Singh R/o. Karwan, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P. State Wakf Board, Razak Manzil, Nampally, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer, 2 Inspector of Auditor, Wakf City Circle, No.4, A.P. State Wakf Board, Hyderabad, Rep. by its .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.V.S.SURESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: MR.ABDUL NAJEEB KHAN The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 3954 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside order dated 18.02.2008 issued by the Chief Executive Officer of the A.P. Wakf Board, respondent No.1. Heard Sri M.V.S. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the averments contained in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition shows that the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order passed under Section 54 (3) of the A.P. Wakf Act, 1995 (for short, ‘the Act’) by which he was asked to remove the encroachment in respect of the property relating to Masjid Kulsumpura, Karwan. The learned counsel contended that the properties bearing MCH Nos.13-06-660 and 13-06-660/1 & 2, Kulsumpura have nothing to do with the petitioner and that in order to malign the petitioner and to harass him, respondent No.1 passed the impugned order. Having carefully considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that if the petitioner is unconnected with the abovementioned property, no prejudice will be caused to him by the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, expressed apprehension that under the guise of execution of the impugned order the respondents are likely to harass the petitioner by seeking police aid. Though this apprehension is not supported by any material, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents not to harass the petitioner, if he does not either directly or indirectly cause obstruction to the execution of order dated 18.02.2008 passed by the Chief Executive Officer of respondent No.1 Board. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.5166 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 26.02.2008 ES To 1.2CCs 2.2CD copies