Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 578 (AP)

Hameed AH v. A. P. State Wakf board

2001-06-13

G.BIKSHAPATHY

body2001
G. BIKSHAPATHY, J. ( 1 ) THE writ petition is filed seeking writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent contained in file no. 61/j2/sntc/hyd/98, dated 15-5-2000 and the consequential proceedings of the 2nd respondent in file No. B/1099/2000, dated 24-5-2000 in directing eviction of the petitioners from premises No. 21-1-1098/9, 10 and 11, Rikab Gunj, Hyderabad in exercise of powers under Sections 54 and 55 of Wakf Act, 1995, as illegal and without jurisdiction, and for consequential direction to restore the property back to the petitioners. ( 2 ) THE petitioners are four in number who filed this writ petition stating that the 4th respondent is a Trust incorporated under the provisions of the Trusts Act and registered on 22-5-1998 with the object mentioned therein. It is further stated that the Trust was gifted with the property admeasuring 538 sq. yards bearing premises no. 21-1-1098/9, 10 and 11 under three separate Settlement Deeds vide Nos. 1280/ 98, 1271/98 and 1272/98, dated 30-5-1998 executed by the original owners in favour of the Trust. It is also the case of the petitioners that in order to develop the land gifted to the Trust, the plans were prepared and submitted to the Municipality for construction of a building. Accordingly the municipality has granted permission on 29-1-1999 and 5-2-1999 and consequently the construction was commenced. However on the representation of the 1 st respondent, the Municipality cancelled the permission granted to the petitioner No. 4-Trust but the same was challenged in the civil Court. The civil Court granted an interim injunction restraining the MCH from interfering with the constructions and it is subsisting. While the matter stood thus, the 1st respondent- wakf Board issued notice purporting to be under Section 54 (1) of the Wakf Act for short the Act dated 20-5-1999 calling upon the petitioners to vacate from the premises viz. , 21-1-1098/9, 10 and 11 on the ground that the property was the wakf property and required the petitioners to submit representation, if any, if they so desire. To the said notice, a detailed representation was submitted by the petitioners, dated 28-7-1999 stating that the property in question does not belong to Macca Madina Allauddin trust nor it a wakf property, and it was stated that the said property belonged to the 4th petitioner having been gifted by the original owners. To the said notice, a detailed representation was submitted by the petitioners, dated 28-7-1999 stating that the property in question does not belong to Macca Madina Allauddin trust nor it a wakf property, and it was stated that the said property belonged to the 4th petitioner having been gifted by the original owners. It was also brought out in the reply that petitioners had already filed suit for perpetual injunction and the same is pending. Subsequent to the receipt of representation dated 4-6-1999, another letter was issued by the Wakf Board directing the petitioners to submit the documents in proof of alleged ownership in the representation dated 4-6-1999. Accordingly on 28-7-1999 they have submitted ten documents and the final order was passed on 15-5-2000 directing eviction of the petitioners from the premises in question. Thereafter, a request was made to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to evict the petitioners from the premises in question and accordingly the proceedings were initiated under Section 55 of the Act by the revenue authorities and ultimately the possession was taken over from the petitioners and handed over to the respondents 1 and 5. As on the date of taking over the possession the petitioners had already constructed ground, first and second floors. Aggrieved by the action of the 1st respondent dated 15-5-2000 and consequential action of taking over possession of the original authorities, the present writ petition has been filed. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners mr. V. Venkata Romano submits that the impugned proceedings dated 15-5-2000 and consequential action are illegal and contrary to law. Under Section 54 of the Act, the chief Executive Officer is the competent authority to initiate action for evicting the persons from the wakf property. He is the statutory authority constituted under the Act and therefore he alone is the competent authority to initiate action, but in the impugned proceedings he acted on the orders of the Chairperson and such a course of action is not contemplated under the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. The chairperson has no role to play while initiating action under Section 54 of the Act and therefore, the entire proceedings are illegal and invalid. Therefore, the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. The chairperson has no role to play while initiating action under Section 54 of the Act and therefore, the entire proceedings are illegal and invalid. ( 4 ) HE submits that the impugned proceedings were issued on the orders of the chairperson dated 14-5-2000 and the contents of such documents are not made available to the petitioners; therefore the order was passed behind the back of the petitioners only on the directions of the chairperson and such an order is illegal and invalid. ( 5 ) HE further submits that in the show- cause notice dated 20-5-1999 that the property in question was the wakf property of the Institution Macca Madina Allauddin wakf which was registered as a wakf and its properties were notified in A. P. Gazette no. 6-A, dated 9-2-1989 at page 93 serial no. 2373. He refers to the details in the said Gazette and submits that the boundaries and Municipal numbers thereof. 4. The municipal numbers were also contained in the said Gazette viz. , 21-1-1080 to 1087, 21-1-1089,21-1-1040 to 21-1-1059,21-1-1062 to 21-1-1068, (C2) IV-C. 1-1036/1-95 (C. 2) ivc, 1-1024-36, 1-1035/96-116, 77 and 78, 1 -105071 -10. The total extent was mentioned as 9126. 6 square yards. But while in the impugned final order it was stated the wakf property belonged to Allauddin Charities and Zakath Wakf situated at Rikab Gunj, pathergatti, Hyderabad and it was registered and notified as a wakf. It is submitted by him that these two wakfs are different. Macca Madina Allauddin Wakf (4th respondent) did not own any such premises as mentioned in the final order and that the Allauddin Charities and Zakath Wakf (5th respondent) possessed different and distinct properties mentioned in the munthakhab. He refers boundaries of the properties held by Allauddin Charities and the Municipal numbers are contained in the said Munthakhab. (21-1-1001 to 1003) (21-1-1026/63 to 67), (21-1-1037 to 1039); (21-1-1092/ 1098); (21-1-1098 ). 1 to 8 and seven unnumbered mulgies. ( 6 ) IT also contains the boundaries which reads thus: north: 33 Regd. Wakf mulgies Mahboob shahi Road. South: Mosque and Patel Market Road. East: Public path to the malgies known as Madina Bazar from Patel Market. West: Road to Rikab Gunj. 1 to 8 and seven unnumbered mulgies. ( 6 ) IT also contains the boundaries which reads thus: north: 33 Regd. Wakf mulgies Mahboob shahi Road. South: Mosque and Patel Market Road. East: Public path to the malgies known as Madina Bazar from Patel Market. West: Road to Rikab Gunj. ( 7 ) IN the Schedule of properties also the details of the property was mentioned which is extracted below:- "all land bounded by the boundary line indicated in the plan including open plots bearing Municipal Nos. 21-1-1001 to 21-1-1003 and 21-1-1036/63 to 67 and malgies bearing Municipal Nos. 21 -1 -1037 to 21-1-1039 and 21-1-1092 to 1098 and 21-1-1098/1 to 21-1-1098/8, and also seven newly constructed unnumbered malgies adjoining open plot bearing municipal No. 21-1-1001, situate at pathergatti, Hyderabad, as per the plan annexed hereto. " thus, it is submitted that the properties held by 4th respondent Macca Madina Allauddin wakf are quite different and distinct than the properties held by the 5th respondent allauddin Charities and Zakath Wakf and therefore, issuing a show-cause notice in respect of Macca Madina Allauddin Trust and passing final orders relating to the properties of Alladdin Charities and Zakath wakf is illegal and contrary to law. When once the statutory authority empowered to issue show-cause notice in respect of the properties mentioned in Macca Madina wakf Board, it is not open for such authority to change the nature of properties and details of properties while passing final orders. This constitute violation of principles of natural justice as the properties mentioned in the impugned order were not at all the subject-matter in the show-cause notice. Therefore, the entire proceedings initiated presuming that the properties mentioned in the final orders are the properties mentioned in the show-cause notice is wholly illegal and contrary to law. ( 8 ) HE further submits that whether the properties in question is a wakf property or not is a question which is to be decided in a pending suit before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the petitioners also submits that the wakf Board filed a suit os No. 40 of 1999 on 10-5-1999 seeking permanent injunction restraining the petitioners herein, who are defendants in the suit, not to interfere with the suit schedule property. The learned Counsel for the petitioners also submits that the wakf Board filed a suit os No. 40 of 1999 on 10-5-1999 seeking permanent injunction restraining the petitioners herein, who are defendants in the suit, not to interfere with the suit schedule property. In the said suit the defence of the petitioners herein is that the property is not a Wakf property and the Wakf Board failed to obtain any temporary injunction. In order to circumvent the process of law, the resort was taken to Section 54 of the Act and order was passed. He submits that the order is mala fide and apart from that, the action is wholly without jurisdiction. ( 9 ) ANOTHER contention is raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that under Section 54 of the Act, the Chief executive Officer is authorised to conduct enquiry in a summary procedure and when a substantial dispute is raised with regard to the character of the property viz. , whether it is a wakf property or a private property, it is not open for the Wakf Board to decide the same in a summary proceedings more especially when the suit filed by the Wakf board was pending as on the date of initiation of proceedings. ( 10 ) IT is lastly submitted that the order is also without jurisdiction inasmuch as the chief Executive Officer is not entitled to declare the documents of gift made in favour of the 4th petitioner-Trust as illegal and forged and such a finding is unwarranted and wholly without jurisdiction. It is for the competent civil Court to declare that the said Gift Deeds are invalid and unenforceable and the Wakf Board is not empowered to exercise such a power and declare the documents as invalid. ( 11 ) ON the other hand the learned counsel Mr. Nalini Kumar appearing for respondents 4 and 5 submits that the properties in question are the Trust properties having been declared as such in the A. P. Gazette and therefore the petitioners cannot now contend that it is not a wakf property. If at all they are aggrieved, they ought to have filed a suit within the time stipulated. Therefore, the petitioners are estopped from now contending that it is not a wakf property. If at all they are aggrieved, they ought to have filed a suit within the time stipulated. Therefore, the petitioners are estopped from now contending that it is not a wakf property. He also submits that the Macca Madina allauddin Trust and the Allauddin Charities and Zakath Wakf are one and the same as the properties mentioned in the Gazette are also the same properties mentioned in the Trust Deed of Allauddin Charities and zakath Wakf. He further submits that municipal numbers are not the criteria to determine the extent of the land held by the wakf, but the boundaries mentioned therein will govern the situation and if the properties are situated within the boundaries mentioned in the Gazette, no further enquiry is necessary. It is also further stated that the concerned authority has conducted an enquiry and the Inspector, Auditor and the surveyor submitted reports with reference to the Gazette stating that the Municipal no. 21-1-1098 having a total extent of 9126. 6 square yards was covered by the Notification and therefore, the order passed by the authority that it is a wakf property cannot be successfully assailed. The learned counsel would also submit that no writ petition lies against the order passed by the wakf Board. It is open for the petitioners to challenge the same in a separate suit which is required to be filed under Section 54 (4) of the Act. Therefore, when once the alternative and effective remedy is available, the writ petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed on this ground also. ( 12 ) MR. Venugopal, learned Counsel appearing for the Wakf Board submits that when the properties declared as wakf properties and Gazette publication was also made in that regard, they are deemed to be wakf properties unless an amendment is issued to the notification. He further submits that as the entire property mentioned in the Gazette was composite properties of macca Madina Allauddin Trust, they are deemed to have been included in the Gazette notification. He refers to the properties possessed by Allauddin Trust and submits that the boundaries and Municipal numbers are some of the properties out of the total properties held by Macca Madina Allauddin trust and therefore, there is no inconsistency or illegality in the order passed by the authority. He refers to the properties possessed by Allauddin Trust and submits that the boundaries and Municipal numbers are some of the properties out of the total properties held by Macca Madina Allauddin trust and therefore, there is no inconsistency or illegality in the order passed by the authority. ( 13 ) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length. ( 14 ) THE issue that arises for consideration is whether the petitioners have alternative and effective remedy as contended by the learned Counsel for the respondents under Section 54 (4) of the Act. ( 15 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners would contend that it is not an alternative remedy and it is only a supplemental or additional remedy available under Section 54 (4) of the Act. In this regard it is necessary to extract Section 54 of the Wakf Act which reads as follows: "54. Removal of encroachment from wakf property :- (1) Whenever the Chief executive Officer considers whether on receiving any complaint or on his own motion that there has been an encroachment on any land, building, space or other property which is wakf property and, which has been registered as such under this Act, he shall cause to be served upon the encroacher a notice 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 him 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. (2) The notice referred to in subsection (1) shall be served in such manner as may be prescribed. (3) If, after considering the objections, received during the period specified in the notice, and after conducting an enquiry in such manner as may be prescribed, the Chief Executive Officer is satisfied that the property in question is wakf property and that there has been an encroachment on any such wakf property, he may, by an order, require the encroacher to remove such encroachment and deliver possession of the land, building, space or other property encroached upon to the mutawalli of the wakf. (4) Nothing contained in sub-section (3) shall prevent any person aggrieved by the order made by the Chief Executive officer under that sub-section from instituting a suit in a Tribunal to establish that he has right, title or interest in the land, building, space or other property : provided that no such suit shall be instituted by a person who has been let into possession of the land, building, space or other property as a lessee, licensee or mortgagee by the mutawalli of the wakf or by any other person authorities by him in this behalf. The entire purport of Section 54 of the Act is to empower the Chief Executive Officer to remove the encroachments from wakf property and in that regard he was permitted to take action as contained in the said proviso. But however under sub-section (4) of Section 54, the aggrieved party is given liberty to institute a suit in a Tribunal that he has a right, title or interest in the land, building, space or other property. Basing on this sub-section, the learned Counsel for the respondents would contend that if the petitioners have got any right, title or interest, they ought to have approached the Tribunal constituted under the Act, but no writ petition is maintainable in this regard against the order passed by the 1st respondent. ( 16 ) IT has to be noted in this regard that sub-section (4) cannot be construed as an appeal from the orders of the Chief executive Officer under Section 54 (3) of the Act. It is an additional remedy which is provided to the aggrieved party to file a suit in an appropriate Tribunal. Further, it is a well settled principle that if the orders of the authorities are in contravention of fundamental right or the violation of principles of natural justice or if the order is wholly without jurisdiction, it is always open for the aggrieved party to challenge the same in a writ proceedings under article 226 of the Constitution of India. Even assuming that there is an alternative and effective remedy, yet for the aforesaid violations, it cannot be said that there is a total prohibition from approaching the High court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the instant case Section 54 (4) of the Act cannot be treated as an alternative remedy. Even assuming that there is an alternative and effective remedy, yet for the aforesaid violations, it cannot be said that there is a total prohibition from approaching the High court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the instant case Section 54 (4) of the Act cannot be treated as an alternative remedy. Further, the principal grievance in the writ petition is that the impugned order is wholly incompetent and without jurisdiction. In such an event when the entire issue impinges upon touches on the jurisdiction of the authority, it does not preclude this Court from entertaining the writ petition and considering the contention of the petitioners in this regard. A catena of decisions on this point would reveal that when the order is wholly without jurisdiction, even this Court is entitled to interdict the proceedings at the stage of show-cause notice also. Under these circumstances, I have to necessarily reject the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents that the petitioners have alternative and effective remedy and that the writ petition was not maintainable. ( 17 ) THE next pivotal question that calls for consideration is whether the impugned order is valid and the Chief executive Officer has jurisdiction to pass such an order. ( 18 ) SECTION 54 of the Act enables the chief Executive Officer either suo motu or on a representation made by a third party to evict from the property if there has been an encroachment on the property, which is wakf property and which has been registered as such under the Act. This has to be done after following the procedure laid down under sub-section (3) of Section 54. Therefore, before proceeding with the action under Section 54 of the Act, two ingredients are necessarily to be complied with, (1) the property on which the proceedings are being initiated should be a wakf property and (2) such Wakf property should have been registered under the Act. It is only when these ingredients are fulfilled, it would be open for the Chief Executive Officer to proceed summarily and take further action in accordance with the said provisions. In the instant case, the main thrust of argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that what was described in the show- cause notice is a property which is quite distinct and different than what was described in the final order. In the instant case, the main thrust of argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that what was described in the show- cause notice is a property which is quite distinct and different than what was described in the final order. The petitioners only refer to the premises bearing Municipal no. 21-1-1098/9, 10 and 11. It is categorically submitted that these properties are not owned or possessed by the macca Madina Allauddin Wakf or any other wakf notified in the A. P. Gazette. Until and unless this property is notified as a wakf property as contained in the Gazette, the Chief Executive Officer will not have any jurisdiction to proceed with the same and take action for eviction of the persons, who are in occupation of the said premises. ( 19 ) IT is necessary to see what is the property which was notified in the Gazette, which is the sheet anchor of the A. P. Wakf board. In the Gazette Notification dated 9-2-1989 the properties at Sl. No. 2373 were described as wakf properties of Mecca madina Allauddin Wakf and those properties having been notified in the gazette were registered in Statutory Wakf register. It is admitted that the properties held by 5th respondent Allauddin Charities are those contained in the Trust deed dated 23-9-1976. It is submitted that even assuming that this property is owned by for proper appreciation of the case, it is necessary to extract the properties notified in the Gazette and the properties held by allauddin Charities and Zakath wakf. The following is comparative table: 5th respondent, but so long as they are not notified in the Gazette, action taken by the chief Executive Officer under Section 54 of the Act is without jurisdiction and invalid. Properties notified in Gazette Dated 9-2-1989 properties held by Allauddin Charities and Zakath Wakf under Trustee s. No. 2373 Name and situation of Wakf Sunni/shiya Makka Madina Alladdin Wakf Four storied Building with 21 shops and 24 flats. Area : 9,126 sq. yards for protection and safeguarding and for charitable purpose including medical aid and educational assistance etc. , as mentioned in Wakf deed dated 23-9-1976. Nature and objectives of Wakf : for aid to 1. HEH Nizam, Allauddin Technical Institute 2. Jamia and Nizamia 3. Anwar-UI-Loom College. 4. Rose Vocational Institutions. 5. Modrasa-Sakeena-Niswan. Area : 9,126 sq. yards for protection and safeguarding and for charitable purpose including medical aid and educational assistance etc. , as mentioned in Wakf deed dated 23-9-1976. Nature and objectives of Wakf : for aid to 1. HEH Nizam, Allauddin Technical Institute 2. Jamia and Nizamia 3. Anwar-UI-Loom College. 4. Rose Vocational Institutions. 5. Modrasa-Sakeena-Niswan. Boundaries : north : Mahaboob Shahi Road, South : Road, East : Charminar Road, West : property of Ahmed Nawaz Jung boundaries : north : 33 regd. wakf mulgies Mahaboob Shahi Road, South : Mosque and Patel Market Road, East : Public path to the mulgies known as Madina Bazar from Patel Market. West : Road to Rikab Gunj. Gross income : Rs. 82,000/- Rent rs. 30,000/- by way of rent. Nature of Property : 134 mulgies Municipal Nos. 21-1-1080 to 1087, 21-1-1089, 21-1-1040 to 21-1-1059, 21-1-1062 to 21-1-1068 21-1-1001 to 1003 2 1-1 -1026/63 to 67, 21-1-1037 to 1039, 21-1-1092/1098 21-1-1098/1 to 8 and Seven un-numbered mulgies schedule of properties c-2 IV (C) - 1-1036/1-95 (0. 2) IVC, 1-1024-36, 1-1035/96-116, 77 and 78, 1-1050/1-10 all land bounded by the Boundary line in the plan including open plots bearing Municipal Nos. 21-1-1001 to 21-1-1003 and 21-1-1036/ 63/67 and mulgies bearing Municipal Nos. 21-1-1037 to 21-1-1039 and 21-1-1092 to 1098 and 21-1-1098/4 to 21-1-1098/8, and also seven newly construed un-numbered mulgies adjoining open plot bearing Municipal Nos. 21-1-1001, situated at Pathergatti, Hyderabad as per the plan annexed hereto. ( 20 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the property in question is 21-1-1089/9, 10 and 11 and this property is not reflected either in the Gazette notification or in the list of properties held by Allauddin Wakf. Even in one of the municipal number mentioned as 21-1-1098 1 to 8 and seven unnumbered malgies, they did not contain the Municipal No. 21-1-1098/ 9, 10 and 11. Even the seven unnumbered malgies are not forming part of 1098 Block as can be seen from the schedule of properties, wherein it was described as 7 newly constructed unnumbered malgies adjoining open plot bearing municipal No. 21 -1 -1001. Therefore, the said unnumbered shops are not in continuation of 1098/9, 10 and 11, but they are adjacent to 21-1-1001. Even the seven unnumbered malgies are not forming part of 1098 Block as can be seen from the schedule of properties, wherein it was described as 7 newly constructed unnumbered malgies adjoining open plot bearing municipal No. 21 -1 -1001. Therefore, the said unnumbered shops are not in continuation of 1098/9, 10 and 11, but they are adjacent to 21-1-1001. Placing heavy reliance on the document, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the property against which the Wakf board is proceeding is not the wakf property nor was it notified in the A. P. Gazette. Therefore, the entire action of the authority is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction and consequently they cannot proceed further. ( 21 ) THE learned Counsel for the Wakf board Mr. Venugopal and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5 mr, Nalini Kumar reiterated their submissions are mentioned supra and would further submit that the boundaries would prevail over the Municipal numbers and that the boundaries given in the Gazette also encompass within the properties of Allauddin charities and Zakath Wakf. ( 22 ) IT is to be noted in this regard that what was mentioned in the Gazette notification is the Municipal numbers and also the boundaries with the area of 9126. 6 square yards and the further description was detailed as four storied building with 21 shops and 24 flats. There is no mention about the open space in that area. Be that as it may, these Municipal numbers do not contain the property which the subject-matter in the writ petition. Apart from that, even the properties held by Allauddin Charities and Zakath Wakf also do not contain the municipal numbers 21-1-1098/9, 10 and 11. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the Macca Madina allauddin Wakf is the composite body which consists of various wakfs and therefore a composite notification was issued to cover all the properties, which fall within the boundaries mentioned therein. But this contention cannot be accepted for the reason that -under the Act itself a specific provision is made to notify the particular wakf and the properties held by it or attached to it. The clear details of the properties have been mentioned in the Gazette with the name of trust and it is open for the competent authority viz. But this contention cannot be accepted for the reason that -under the Act itself a specific provision is made to notify the particular wakf and the properties held by it or attached to it. The clear details of the properties have been mentioned in the Gazette with the name of trust and it is open for the competent authority viz. , Chief Executive Officer to proceed against those persons who illegally occupied the properties as mentioned in the gazette subject to the procedure as laid under Section 54 of the Act. But if the property is not a wakf property or even if it is a wakf property and if it is not registered under the Act, it would be outside the purview of the Act and A. P. Wakf Board to take action. Further, the learned Counsel for the respondents 4 and 5 Mr. Nalini kumar submitted that there was a printing mistake in the Gazette dated 9-2-1989, wherein the Municipal number was mentioned as 21-1-1089, but it ought to be 21-1-1098. Therefore, 1098 encompasses all other sub-divisions. Hence the property cannot be said to be outside the purview of the wakf. This contention also has to be rejected for the reason that if there is a printing mistake, it is open for the parties to get it rectified and an errata should be published in that regard, but as far as the gazette is concerned it is final and it has a statutory force. Until and unless the municipal numbers are changed, this Court cannot take note and read 1098 for 1089. Therefore, it is noticed that neither in the show-cause notice nor in the final order passed, which is impugned in this writ petition, the properties which are the subject matter in the writ petition, cannot be related to and they do not fall within the properties held by Macca Madina Allauddin Trust or allauddin Charities and Zakath Wakf. It is also to be noted that in the show-cause notice what was mentioned by the Chief executive Officer was that the property was the wakf property and declared as such by a gazette Notification and being possessed by macca Madina Allauddin Trust, but in the final order the Chief Executive Officer himself states the Wakf Institution as allauddin Charities and Zakath Wakf situate at Rikab Gunj. The comparative table clearly distinguish and differentiate the properties held by Mecca Madina Allauddin Wakf and allauddin Charities and Zakath Wakf. The boundaries of the properties, Municipal numbers, purpose and object, annual income are quite different. The Wakf Board nor the 4th respondent did not produce any document to substantiate that these two Wakfs are one and the same. Therefore, what was notified in the show-cause notice was alleged to be the property of Macca Madina Allauddin wakf and the property mentioned in the final order was described as the one belonging to Allauddin Charities and Zakat wakf. When once the show-cause notice was issued on the ground that certain properties belonged to Macca Madina Wakf property and that the action is being initiated under Section 54 of the Act, can it be said that it is open for him to change the nature of the wakf property and pass a final order altogether ignoring the properties held by the wakf mentioned in the show-cause notice and substitute a different wakf viz. , Allauddin charities and Zakath Wakf. There is no document to show that the properties held by Allauddin Charities and Zakath Wakf have been notified in the Gazette to claim the protection of the Act. Therefore, they are totally different properties and unrelated to each other. Therefore, when both the properties are distinct and different and when once a show-cause notice was issued stating that they are the properties of Macca Madina allauddin Trust, it would not be appropriate for the 1st respondent to again state in the final order that these properties belonged to allauddin Charities and Zakath Wakf. It is not open for him to take a different stand at different levels. Further as seen from the gazette as also the properties of Allauddin wakf, the property which is in question viz. , premises No. 22-1-1098/9, 10 and 11 is neither owned and possessed by Macca madina Allauddin Trust nor the Allauddin charities and Zakath Wakf situated at Rikab gunj. Thus, it is clear that the properties in question did not form part of the wakf properties. ( 23 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondents would however contend that the Municipality having come to know that the property belonged to the Wakf Board and cancelled the permission granted to the petitioners; therefore it cannot be said that they are not wakf properties. ( 23 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondents would however contend that the Municipality having come to know that the property belonged to the Wakf Board and cancelled the permission granted to the petitioners; therefore it cannot be said that they are not wakf properties. That question need not be gone into at this stage as the petitioners have already filed a suit challenging the cancellation of permission and there was suspension of the order of cancellation passed by the Municipality. Therefore, mere cancellation of permission granted to the petitioners would not be construed as the property belonging to Wakf board and this issue need not be decided in this writ petition. Further the Wakf Board has already seized of the matter in OS No. 40 of 1999 filed by the Wakf Board against the petitioners. Under these circumstances, i have to necessarily hold that impugned order passed by the 1st respondent is wholly incompetent and without jurisdiction. Consequently it follows that the subsequent action taken by the authorities under Section 55 of the Act would fall to the ground and the petitioners are entitled to get restoration of possession which existed prior to 15-5-2000. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that as on the date when the possession was taken over by the revenue authorities, the structures viz. , cellar, ground floor and first floor were raised and that cannot be retained by the respondents any further. In view of the finding that the chief Executive Officer is not competent to initiate proceedings and pass orders, I need not consider the other contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the order is vitiated by mala fides and that the Wakf Board ought not to have decided in a summary manner when there is a substantial dispute as to the nature of the property, and other contentions raised by him supra. ( 24 ) THE learned Counsel for respondents 4 and 5 however submits that consequent on the possession having been given by the revenue authorities, some tenants were inducted and by virtue of this order, they will have to be evicted and in that process, he requested for status quo to be maintained for a period of four weeks. ( 24 ) THE learned Counsel for respondents 4 and 5 however submits that consequent on the possession having been given by the revenue authorities, some tenants were inducted and by virtue of this order, they will have to be evicted and in that process, he requested for status quo to be maintained for a period of four weeks. Since I held that it is not a wakf property and the order passed by the Chief Executive officer is without jurisdiction, I am of the considered view that the status quo would not serve the purpose. Accordingly I reject the request of the learned Counsel. But however two (2) weeks time is granted to respondents 1 and 5 to ensure that the tenants are evicted and they shall hand over vacant possession of the premises in question to the petitioners.