L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) IN all these three Writ Petitions the order i dated 9-4-1997, issued by the Revenue i Divisional Officer and Sub-Divisional magistrate, Gudur, Nellore Distric-1st respondent, is in challenge. Hence, they are disposed of through this common order.

( 2 ) PETITIONERS are in possession of various extents of land in Sy. No. 135, at present in Ward No. 13, Bazar Street, venkatagiri Town. They claim to have made constructions on the said plots. The land in an extent of 102 Ankanams is said to have been gifted by Venkatagiri Raja to the Wakf board to be used as agnigundam (Akva site) during the Moharrum celebrations. A notification in the A. P. Gazette was issued on 23-1-1992, declaring it as wakf property .

( 3 ) PETITIONERS were served with the copy of the order dated 9-4-1997. It discloses that the Chief Executive Officer of the A. P. Wakf board-3rd respondent found the Wakf property to have been encroached by various individuals including petitioners and in exercise of power under Section 54 of the wakf Act, 1995, (herein after referred to as the Act ) issued notices requiring the encroachers to vacate the land within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. It is further stated that since petitioners did not either submit their explanation or vacate the land, the 3rd respondent issued a requisition to the 1st respondent to evict the encroachers and in pursuance of the same, the 1st respondent issued the impugned order requiring petitioners to vacate the place within seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

( 4 ) PETITIONERS contend that they have not received any notices said to have been issued by the 3rd respondent, much less, the order passed directing their eviction. They contend that the very notification of the land as belonging to the Wakf Board cannot be sustained in law. It is pleaded that unless they were served with notices and an order was passed under sub-section (3) of the section 54 of the Act, the impugned order cannot be sustained.

( 5 ) IN the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, the circumstances under which the impugned order came to be passed have been stated. It is alleged that the Raja of venkatagiri filed a writ petition challenging the claim of the Wakf Board in respect of the land and that the same was dismissed by this court. It is also stated that petitioners have an alternative remedy by way of filing suits before the A. P. Wakf Tribunal.

( 6 ) HEARD the learned counsel for petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and the learned Standing counsel for A. P. Wakf Board.

( 7 ) PETITIONERS challenge the order dated 9-4-1997, passed by the 1st respondent. This order is said to have been passed by the 1st respondent in exercise of power under Section 54 of the Act. The Act provides for eviction of encroachers from wakf properties. In addition to adjudication of such claims by the Wakf Tribunal, under section 83 of the Act, the Act confers powers on the 3rd respondent under Sections 54 and 55 of the Act, to cause eviction of the encroachers. Sub-section (1) of Section 54 of the Act contemplates issuance of a notice directing the encroachers to remove encroachments or submit explanation within a specified time. Sub-section (2) of Sec. 54 of the Act provides for the method of service. The 3rd respondent is empowered to pass order under sub-section (3) in pursuance of the notice issued by him under sub-sec. (1 ). If any explanation is submitted, he is required to take the same into account and pass appropriate orders. Axiomatically, if no explanation is submitted, he is required to pass orders almost repeating his own view point on the matter. Either way, the 3rd respondent is under obligation to pass orders under sub-section (3) of Section 54 of the Act requiring the encroachers to vacate the land or premises.

( 8 ) SUB-SECTION (4) provides for a remedy of suit to the persons, who are served with the orders of evictio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document