IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21374 of 2010 Between: Takia Peer Pasha ..... Petitioner AND A.P. State Wakf Board, Hyderabad. .....Respondent Counsel for the petitioner : Ms. Naseeb Afshan Counsel for the respondent : Sri M.A.K. Mukheed The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21374 of 2010 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondent in acting on the petitioner’s representation for removal of the encroachments on the Wakf property, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Ms. Naseeb Afshan, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel for the respondent. Peer Pasha graveyard is known as Takia Lal Bee, which is a registered Wakf and was published as such at Sy.No.914, Page No.1120 in the A.P. Gazette dated 11.09.1954. The petitioner, who is a Mutawalli, has narrated the background under which the Wakf was created. He has averred that originally the Wakf land consisting of approximately 29760 square yards (Ac.6.10 guntas) was situated outside Dabirpura, Hyderabad, that taking advantage of absence of fencing, the Wakf property was encroached by people. On 11.11.2009, the petitioner gave a representation to the respondent requesting it to issue notice under Section 54 of the Wakf Act, 1995 (for short, “the Act”) for removal of the encroachments from Peer Pasha graveyard. The grievance of the petitioner is that having received the said representation, no action has been initiated by the respondent. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Chief Executive Officer of the respondent, wherein it is inter alia stated that the institution is being managed by the respondent through the Mutawalli and it is the primary duty of the Mutawalli to take immediate steps to protect the Wakf property. It is further averred that though the petitioner is claiming to be the Mutawalli since the year 1998, he did not give any representation till 16.11.2009 and that therefore the petitioner is responsible for usurping the Wakf property. Section 13(1) of the Act provided for constitution of Wakf Board. Section 23 provides for appointment of Chief Executive Officer. Under Section 25, it is the duty of the Chief Executive Officer to investigate the nature and extent of Wakfs and Wakf properties and calling whenever necessary, for an inventory of Wakf properties etc., inspecting or causing inspection of the Wakf properties etc., and doing generally of such acts as may be necessary for the control, maintenance and superintendence of Wakf. Section 32 envisages powers and functions of the Board which inter alia include the function to ensure that the Wakfs under its superintendence are properly maintained, controlled and administered and the income thereof is duly applied to the objects and for the purposes for which such Wakfs were created or intended. Section 54 empowers the Chief Executive Officer to cause a notice served on the encroacher specifying the particulars of the encroachment and calling upon him to show cause before a date to be specified in such notice, as to why an order requiring her to remove the encroachment before the date so specified should not be made and shall also send a copy of such notice to the concerned Mutawalli. He is further empowered to order for eviction of the encroachers by following the procedure prescribed therein. Section 55 provides for mode of enforcement of orders passed under Section 54. This scheme underlying the abovementioned provisions of the Act would clearly reveal that the Wakf Board is constituted for proper management of the Wakf institutions and the Chief Executive Officer is empowered to protect the Wakf properties from encroachments and evict the encroachers after following the due process prescribed under Section 54. Regrettably, the Chief Executive Officer of the respondent has failed to realize his responsibility in initiating appropriate action for evicting the encroachers of the Wakf involved in this case. The tenor of the counter affidavit filed by him only suggests that he is indulging in blame game by pointing a finger at the petitioner. What perplexes this Court is that he has not even offered to take remedial action by initiating appropriate steps at least now under the provisions of Section 54 of the Act. The inaction of the Chief Executive Officer borders on his dereliction of the statutory duties under the provisions of the Act. Being the Chief Executive Officer of the respondent Board under whose management properties worth multitudes of crores are in existence, he shall always be vigilant and act with alacrity to jealously guard these properties. The counter affidavit filed by him does not suggest that he has shown any sensitivity whatsoever in discharging his duties. For the abovementioned reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed. The Chief Executive Officer of the respondent is directed to initiate immediate action for eviction of the encroachers of the Wakf by following the procedure under Section 54 of the Act. He shall complete this exercise within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.27185 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 08.12.2010 ES