The learned counsel Sri Ravi B.Patil for petitioner

submits that the fourth respondent is a formal party and

no relief is sought against respondent No.4.

2.

The submission of the learned counsel for the

petitioner is placed on record.

3.

The writ petition is filed seeking writ of

mandamus

directing

the

respondents-authority–

respondents Nos.1 to 3 not to demolish the Masjid

constructed in the schedule property. The description of

3

the property shown in the schedule to the writ petition

reads as under :-

“All that piece and parcel of the immovable

property together with a constructed portion of

masjid in the name and style of Jama-E-Masjid

constructed over land in Sy.No.63 of Yerandi Village

(Bandenawaz Wadi) measuring in an extent of 60x40

situated at Yerandi Village, Tq :Basavakalyan,

Dist : Bidar which property is bounded as under :

East by : Graveyard

West by : Portion of Darga,

North by : Portion of IDGA Property,

South by : Public road.

4.

It is the contention of the petitioner that the

Masjid is built in the land bearing Sy.No.63 of Yernadi

Village and it measures 60x40 feet. The boundary of the

property is also provided. The Annexure-A is the

registration certificate pertaining to the petitioner-Wakf.

The said registration certificate also refers to the property

of the Wakf. In the said certificate, it is shown that the

4

property is having House No.79/1 of Bandanawazwadi

Village, Basawakalyan Taluk, Bidar District.

5.

The description shown in the schedule to the

writ petition and the description shown in Annexure-A do

not tally with each other. The apprehension of the

petitioner is that respondents-authority is going to

demolish the Darga without recourse to due process of

law.

6.

The learned Additional Government Advocate

appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 would submit that the

action of demolition of Darga in case to be initiated by the

respondents-authority would be initiated in accordance

with law.

7.

The submission of the learned Additional

Government Advocate for respondents is placed on record.

8.

Under these circumstances, there is no need to

keep the writ petition pending, the writ petition is disposed

5

of placing the submission of the learned Additional

Government Advocate on record.

9.

It is made clear that the court has not

expressed any opinion on the title of the property of the

petitioner

or

the

encroachment

alleged

by

the

respondents-authority. The order does not come in the

way of respondent-authority taking suitable action in

accordance with law in case the petitioner is found to be

encroaching any public property.

10.

Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of.

11.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a

memo for seeking dismissal of petition against respondent

No.4. Memo is placed on record. Petition is dismissed

against respondent No.4.

Sd/-

JUDGE

sn