IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.15456 of 2002 Between: The Managing Committee of Abdul Wahab Saheb Gumbuz, Kurnool, reptd., by its Secretary Janab M.Abdul Kareem Saheb. ... Petitioner And The District Collector/District Chairman, Wakf Board, Kurnool, Kurnool District and two others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri C.Prakash Reddy. Counsel for the respondents: Sri S.M.Subhani for R.1 and R.2. Sri A.Sreedhar for R.3 This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Mandamus to direct respondent No.1 to obtain possession of Ac.0.62 cents of land comprised in Survey No.778/A1 of Ashok Nagar, Kurnool Town, from respondent No.3 and deliver the same to respondent No.2-Wakf Board. The petitioner is the Managing Committee of a Wakf, called Abdul Waheb Saheb Gumbuz, Kurnool. It has represented to respondent No.2 that an extent of Ac.0.62 cents belonging to the petitioner-Wakf is in unauthorized occupation of respondent No.3 and requested for initiation of appropriate action for recover of possession of the said property. Acting on the said representation, the Chief Executive Oﬃcer of respondent No.2 issued notice dated 21-10-2001 to respondent No.3 under Sections 51 and 52 of the Wakf Act, 1995 (for short “the Act”) calling upon it to submit its explanation as to why necessary action for its eviction should not be taken. After holding enquiry, respondent No.2, vide its proceedings dated 1-1-2002 addressed to the District Collector, Kurnool, respondent No.1 herein, requisitioned to him to deliver vacant possession of the said property to the petitioner- Wakf. Following the said requisition, respondent No.1 issued notice dated 2-2-2002 to respondent No.3 ﬁxing 8-2-2002 at 9 AM for hearing. The grievance of the petitioner is that so far no order has been passed by respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 ﬁled a counter-aﬃdavit supporting the version of the petitioner. No counter-aﬃdavits are ﬁled by respondents 1 and 3. Under Section 52(1) of the Act, if the Wakf Board is satisﬁed, after making an enquiry that any immovable property of a Wakf entered as such in the register of Wakf maintained under Section 36 has been transferred without the previous sanction of the Board in contravention of the provisions of Section 51, it may send a requisition to the Collector within whose jurisdiction the property is situate to obtain and deliver possession of the same. Under sub-Section (2), on receipt of such a requisition, the Collector shall pass an order directing the person in possession of the property to deliver the property to the Board within a period of thirty days from the date of service of the order. When once a requisition is made under Section 52(1), it is incumbent upon the Collector to pass an order directing him to deliver possession of the property. The above-mentioned provision does not envisage any further enquiry by the District Collector by calling for explanation from the person in possession of the Wakf property. Therefore, in my view, it is totally unnecessary for respondent No.1 to invite objections from respondent No.3. Respondent No.1 appeared to have not properly understood the scope of Section 52 of the Act. Regrettably, respondent No.1 has not made his stand known by filing a counter-affidavit in the Writ Petition. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed. Respondent No.1 is directed to pass order as envisaged in Section 52(2) of the Act, if not already passed, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. --------------------------- --------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:17-10-2008 MNR