IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.8808 of 2001 Between: 1 Asapu Suryanarayana, S/o. Brahmmam, R/o. Amalapuram, E. G. Dist. 2 Asapu Kundaleswarudu, S/o. Brahammam R/o. Vilasavilli, Upptalaguptam Mandal, E. G. Dist., 3 A. G. Ch., Nageswara Rao, S/o. Brahammam R/o. Vilasavilli, Upptalaguptam Mandal, E. G. Dist., 4 Asapu Suramma, S/o. Brahammam R/o. Vilasavilli, Upptalaguptam Mandal, E. G. Dist., 5 Besa Kesava Rao, S/o. Suranna, R/o. Vilasavilli, Upptalaguptam Mandal, E. G. Dist., 6 Besa Subba Rao, S/o. Suranna, R/o. Vilasavilli, Upptalaguptam Mandal, E. G. Dist., 7 Rayudu Sundharamma, W/o. VenkataRao, Samanasa Village, Uppalagutam Mandal, E. G. Dist., 8 Rayudu Busanam, S/o. Venkanna, Samanasa Village, Uppalagutam Mandal, E. G. Dist., 9 Rayudu Satyanarayana, S/o. Venkanna, Samanasa Village, Uppalagutam Mandal, E. G. Dist., 10 Yarlagadda Venkateswara Rao, S/o,. Venkata Reddy, Samanasa Village, Uppalagutam Mandal, E. G. Dist., 11 Yarlagadda Venkata Reddy, W/o. Venkanna, Samanasa Village, Uppalagutam Mandal, E. G. Dist., 12 M. Venkataramana, S/o. Nagabhusanam, Samanasa Village, Uppalagutam Mandal, E. G. Dist., ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 A.P. State Wakf Board, Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer, 2 Masizid Committee Samanasa Village, Amalapuram Mandal, E. G. Dist., 3 The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, (R.D.O.) Samanasa Village, Amalapuram Mandal, E. G. Dist., .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the orders of the third respondents in reference No. M/3155/2000 Dt. 02.2001 directing the petitioners to deliver the property of their respective small extent in survey No. 257 and 261 of Samanasa Village, Amalapuram Mandal, East Godavari District as illegal, null and void and arbitrary and violative of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to their respective piece of lands. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.T.V.S.PRABHAKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: S.M.SUBHANI, SC FOR WAKF BOARD Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.8808 of 2001 ORDER: The petitioners in this case claim to be in possession of the various properties detailed by them in paragraphs 1 to 12 of their aﬃdavit. Their grievance is that the Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Amalapuram, East Godavari District, the third respondent herein issued the impugned notices dated 12.02.2001 calling upon them to deliver the subject properties on the ground that the same belong to the Masjid Committee, Samanasa Village, Amalapuram Mandal, East Godavari District, the second respondent herein. By order dated 27.04.2001 in W.P.M.P.No.11192 of 2001 in W.P.No.8808 of 2001, this Court granted interim stay of dispossession for a limited period, and thereafter extended it until further orders by its order dated 03.07.2001. No counter-affidavit is filed by the respondents. Heard Sri T.V.S.Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.M.Subhani, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent. From the pleadings in the Writ Petition, it is clear that the petitioners are challenging the action sought to be initiated under Section 54 of the Wakf Act, 1995 (for short ‘the Act’). Section 54(4) of the Act provides that any person aggrieved by the order made under Section 54(3) of the Act, requiring him to remove the encroachment and deliver possession of the property encroached upon to the Mutawalli of the Wakf, is entitled to institute a suit in the Wakf Tribunal and establish that he has right, title or interest in such property. The Wakf Tribunal was constituted under Section 83 of the Act and under Section 85 of the Act, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain a suit in respect of any dispute, question or other matter relating to the Wakf or Wakf property is speciﬁcally barred. In the light of this provision, it is clear that the remedy for the petitioners is to institute a suit before the Wakf Tribunal and they cannot seek redressal of their grievance, if any, by way of a Writ Petition ﬁled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed, permitting the petitioners to invoke the appropriate remedy available to them in law. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ P.V.SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 30.10.2008 va