P. Anil Kumar Kishan, v. Telangana State Wakf Board,

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 34370 of 2018 ORDER:

1) Heard Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri M.A.Mujeeb, learned Standing Counsel for Waqf Board and Sri Boya Ravinder Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Revenue (TG). With their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage. 2) The present writ petition came to be filed seeking issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to act in accordance with law and forbear from interfering with the construction activity of the petitioners or proceeding with demolition of the existing structures over the land in Sy.Nos.288, 289, 291, 292, 293 and 294 of Mamidipally Village, Saroornagar Mandal, presently Balapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, without following the procedure of law and without notifying the petitioners about the invalidating factors concerning the title and possession over the land.

3) It is represented by Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the action of the respondents in dispossessing the petitioners without following due procedure is illegal, improper and incorrect. 4) Sri M.A.Mujeeb, learned Standing Counsel for the Waqf Board would submit that any action taken by them will be in

accordance with the procedure established under law. It is pleaded that the petitioners are proceeding with the construction in spite of the order of the status quo granted by this Court in W.P.No.5039 of 2008.

5) The Government Pleader would submit that the revenue authorities also intend to take action against the petitioners for violating the orders of this Court.

6) Having regard to the above, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the Waqf Board to take action in accordance with Section 54 of the Waqf Act or any other law which is in force, seeking dispossession or eviction of the petitioners from the said land. Insofar as the constructions are made, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners will not claim any equities on the constructions made if they loose the case. It is to be noted here that the order of status quo came to be passed by this Court in W.P.No.5039 of 2008, and if the petitioners have violated the order of status quo, it is always open to the respondents to initiate appropriate proceedings in the said writ petition.

7) Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

_________________________ JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR 26.09.2018 gkv