IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6803 of 2002 Between: Rasa Sai Ramesh & others. … Petitioners AND Mrs. M. Lalitha Bai & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri M.T. Ghouri Counsel for respondent No.6: Sri S.M. Subhan This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6803 of 2002 ORDER:- The petitioners, who claim to be the persons interested in the Wakf property, ﬁled the present writ petition for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent No.6 to prevent demolition of the Wakf properties by respondent Nos.1 to 5, as illegal. A perusal of the record shows that respondent No.6 ﬁled O.S.No.67 of 2000 for declaration that the property bearing door No.2-3-4/19, Golnaka, Amberpet, Hyderabad, belongs to the Wakf Board and also for injunction restraining respondent Nos.1 to 5 from interfering with its possession. Pending the said suit, an order of injunction was passed in favour of respondent No.6. In violation of the said order, respondent Nos.1 to 5 have taken possession of the said property under an order passed by the IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad in RC.No.341 of 1990. Respondent No.6, therefore, ﬁled an application for restitution of possession. The said application was allowed by the Wakf Tribunal (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), which was assailed by respondent Nos.1 to 5 in CRP.No.4856 of 2000 before this Court. This Court, while allowing the said CRP, set aside the order of the Tribunal and directed it to proceed with the suit and adjudicate the same. This Court, however, recorded the undertaking given by the counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5 that they are not going to demolish the said Darga pending the suit. The abovementioned facts clearly show that respondent Nos.1 to 5 have given an undertaking not to demolish the Darga. Though the petitioners claim that respondent Nos.1 to 5 are seeking to demolish the Darga, no tangible material is ﬁled in support of the same. At any rate, if respondent Nos.1 to 5 indulge in any such demolition, respondent No.6 is entitled to initiate contempt proceedings against them in this Court. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.8532 of 2002 ﬁled by the petitioners for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 15.10.2008 ES