IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 24409 of 2000 Between: ..... PETITIONER AND .....RESPONDENT 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 Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.CH.DHANAMJAYA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.24409 OF 2000 ORDER: The order impugned in this Writ Petition is the proceedings of the M.R.O dated 29.11.2000 whereby the temporary pattas granted in favour of the petitioners over the land encroached by them, and on which they have constructed houses, were sought to be cancelled and they were asked to deliver vacant possession to the Government. The petitioners have themselves ﬁled a copy of the notices, issued to them by the A.P. State Wakf Board, on 6.3.2000, under Section 54(1) of the Wakf Act calling upon them to show cause as to why an order requiring them to remove the encroachment should not be made. Petitioners would contend that they have already submitted a reply thereto to the Chief Executive of the Wakf Board on 4.5.2000 and that no orders have been passed thereon till date. Petitioners contend that they are not questioning the action initiated against them by the Wakf Board in this regard. A counter aﬃdavit is ﬁled on behalf of the respondents wherein it is stated that the land in question is a burial ground and is Wakf Property. On being asked as to how the Government could grant temporary pattas over the land which did not belong to it, and which was wakf property, Sri Ch.Dhananjaya, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, would submit that while that may be so, they should at least have been put on notice and given an opportunity of being heard before such an order was passed. Learned Counsel, would submit that it would suﬃce if this Court were to protect the possession of the petitioners till ﬁnal orders were passed pursuant to the eviction notice issued by the A.P. State Wakf Board. Since this Court had already granted interim stay in the year 2000 and as the interim order continues to remain in force for the past 8 years, this request of the Learned Counsel cannot be said to be unreasonable. Without going into the validity of the order passed by the M.R.O. dated 29.11.2000, it would suﬃce if the petitioners are permitted to remain in possession of the property in question till ﬁnal orders are passed by the A.P. State Wakf Board pursuant to the notice issued under Section 54(1) of the Wakf Act. It is made clear that neither the order passed by this Court earlier nor the order now passed would preclude the A.P. State Wakf Board from passing orders on the notice issued by them under Section 54(1) of the Wakf Act and thereafter take action in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. ___________ 28-8-2008 asp