WP 19448 2021

THE HON'BLE Dr.
JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
WRIT PETITION No.19448 OF 2021
ORDER:
This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, is filed seeking the following relief:
“…to issue a writ, order or direction more

particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus
declaring the impugned proceedings of the 2nd
respondent Waqf Board bearing
F.No.21/Rent/Kokapet/RR/Sy.No.109/202/Z-II, dated
03.08.2021 received through post on 10.08.2021
cancelling the lease granted in favour of petitioner in
respect of the Waqf Land in Sy No.109 to an extent of
4,416 square yards, situated at Kokapet Vilage,
Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as being
arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of the
Waqf Act 1995 and the Waqf Properties Lease Rules
2014 as amended by Notification dated 18.02.2020
misuse of powers, abuse of process of law and pas
such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may
deem think fit…”
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
Government Pleader for Social Welfare, appearing for
respondent No.1, Sri Abu Akram, learned Standing Counsel
for Waqf Board, appearing for respondent No.2 and perused
the record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
M/s. Hayat Infrastructure, the petitioner herein, is a

Dr.SA,J
wp_ 19448_2021
2
registered partnership firm registered under Indian
Partnership Act vide Registration No.467 of 2018, dated
09.02.2018. The petitioner is carrying on various businesses
including the business of Restaurant. The petitioner has
taken the subject Waqf land in Sy.No.109, situated at Kokapet
Village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, on lease vide
proceedings F.No.21/ Rent/ Kokapet/RR/Sy.No.109/2020/Z-
II, dated 14.12.2020. The period of lease is three years.
During the course of negotiations, the petitioner paid an
amount of Rs.10,00,000/- as deposit, which is non-
refundable. As per the terms of the lease, the petitioner has
to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- per month, as rent, for the
first one year and thereafter @ Rs.1,10,400/- per month from
the second year onwards. Though the petitioner is regularly
paying the rent, the respondent No.2, without issuing any
notice or without conducting any enquiry, cancelled the lease
granted in favour of the petitioner in respect of the subject
land vide impugned proceedings F.No.21/Rent/Kokapet
/RR/Sy.No.109/2020/Z-II, dated 03.08.2021, which is illegal,
arbitrary and ultimately, prayed this Court to set aside the

Dr.SA,J
wp_ 19448_2021
3
impugned proceedings and allow the writ petition as prayed
for.
4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for
respondent No.2/Waqf Board would submit that the part of
subject property is covered by Graveyard and this fact was
not brought to the notice of the respondent No.2 before
issuing the proceedings vide F.No.
21/Rent/Kokapet/RR/Sy.No.109/ 020/Z-II, dated 14.12.2020,
leasing the subject property in favour of the petitioner. Later
it was brought to the notice of respondent No.2. Therefore,
respondent No.2 issued the impugned proceedings, dated
03.08.2021, cancelling the lease granted in favour of the
petitioner in respect of the subject land and ultimately, prayed
this Court to sustain the impugned order, dated 03.08.2021.
5. As seen from the material placed on record and the
contentions made by both sides, the subject property was let
out to the petitioner vide proceedings, dated 14.12.2020,
after detailed discussion. The duration as well as the monthly
rent payable was fixed. Before issuing the impugned
proceedings F.No.21/Rent/Kokapet /RR/Sy.No.109/2020/Z-II,
dated 03.08.2021, neither show-cause notice was issued nor

Dr.SA,J
wp_ 19448_2021
4
enquiry was conducted. Admittedly, the period of lease is
three years and it has not expired. There is no violation in
payment of rent by the petitioner. In the event of respondent
No.2 finding any material to cancel the lease granted in favour
of the petitioner, it ought to have issued notice to the
petitioner at the first instance and thereafter, an order
cancelling the lease ought to have been passed, which has not
been adverted to in the subject case, which is violation of the
principles of natural justice. Under these circumstances, the
proceedings F.No.21/Rent/Kokapet /RR/Sy.No.109/2020/Z-II,
dated 03.08.2021, issued by the respondent No.2 is liable to
set aside.
6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the
impugned proceedings F.No.21/Rent/Kokapet
/RR/Sy.No.109/2020/Z-II, dated 03.08.2021, issued by
respondent No.2 is set aside. However, it is open to the
respondent No.2-Waqf Board to examine the entire case
afresh and pass orders, in accordance with law, after issuing
notice and affording an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner. It is made clear that till respondent No.2 passes an
order, as indicated above, respondent No.2-Waqf Board and

Dr.SA,J
wp_ 19448_2021
5
its subordinates shall not cause any interference with the
possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in respect of the
subject land.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ
Petition shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
____________________
Dr. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J
Date: 07.03.2022
YVL
Dr.SA,J
wp_ 19448_2021
6
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
WRIT PETITION No.19448 OF 2021
Date:07.03.2022
YVL

WP 19448 2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WP 19448 2021

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

WP 19448 2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE HON'BLE Dr.

JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

WRIT PETITION No.19448 OF 2021

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India, is filed seeking the following relief:

“…to issue a writ, order or direction more

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

Government Pleader for Social Welfare, appearing for

respondent No.1, Sri Abu Akram, learned Standing Counsel

for Waqf Board, appearing for respondent No.2 and perused

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

M/s. Hayat Infrastructure, the petitioner herein, is a

Partnership Act vide Registration No.467 of 2018, dated

09.02.2018. The petitioner is carrying on various businesses

including the business of Restaurant. The petitioner has

taken the subject Waqf land in Sy.No.109, situated at Kokapet

Village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, on lease vide

proceedings F.No.21/ Rent/ Kokapet/RR/Sy.No.109/2020/Z-

II, dated 14.12.2020. The period of lease is three years.

During the course of negotiations, the petitioner paid an

amount of Rs.10,00,000/- as deposit, which is non-

refundable. As per the terms of the lease, the petitioner has

to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- per month, as rent, for the

first one year and thereafter @ Rs.1,10,400/- per month from

the second year onwards. Though the petitioner is regularly

paying the rent, the respondent No.2, without issuing any

notice or without conducting any enquiry, cancelled the lease

granted in favour of the petitioner in respect of the subject

land vide impugned proceedings F.No.21/Rent/Kokapet

/RR/Sy.No.109/2020/Z-II, dated 03.08.2021, which is illegal,

arbitrary and ultimately, prayed this Court to set aside the

4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for

respondent No.2/Waqf Board would submit that the part of

subject property is covered by Graveyard and this fact was

not brought to the notice of the respondent No.2 before

issuing the proceedings vide F.No.

21/Rent/Kokapet/RR/Sy.No.109/ 020/Z-II, dated 14.12.2020,

leasing the subject property in favour of the petitioner. Later

it was brought to the notice of respondent No.2. Therefore,

respondent No.2 issued the impugned proceedings, dated

03.08.2021, cancelling the lease granted in favour of the

petitioner in respect of the subject land and ultimately, prayed

this Court to sustain the impugned order, dated 03.08.2021.

5. As seen from the material placed on record and the

contentions made by both sides, the subject property was let

out to the petitioner vide proceedings, dated 14.12.2020,

after detailed discussion. The duration as well as the monthly

rent payable was fixed. Before issuing the impugned

proceedings F.No.21/Rent/Kokapet /RR/Sy.No.109/2020/Z-II,

dated 03.08.2021, neither show-cause notice was issued nor

three years and it has not expired. There is no violation in

payment of rent by the petitioner. In the event of respondent

No.2 finding any material to cancel the lease granted in favour

of the petitioner, it ought to have issued notice to the

petitioner at the first instance and thereafter, an order

been adverted to in the subject case, which is violation of the

principles of natural justice. Under these circumstances, the

proceedings F.No.21/Rent/Kokapet /RR/Sy.No.109/2020/Z-II,

dated 03.08.2021, issued by the respondent No.2 is liable to