Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                

WP 12548 2020

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 78

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.

RAMACHANDRA RAO
AND
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

WRIT PETITION No.20707 of 2018,

WRIT PETITION No.9709 of 2020


AND
WRIT PETITION No.12548 of 2020

W.P.No.20707 of 2018
Between:
M/s.Sai Pawan Estates Pvtd. Ltd. and
others.
…Petitioners.
And
1. The Telangana State Wakf Board, rep. by its Chief Executive
Officer, Nampally, Hyderabad and others.
…Respondents
W.P.No.9709 of 2020
Between:
Katikaneni Praveen Kumar, S/o.late
K.Krsihna Rao, aged about 50 years,
Occu:Business, R/o.1st Floor, above Punjab
National Bank, Manovikas Nagar,
Hasmathpet Road, Old Bowenpally,
Secunderabad – 500009.
… Petitioner
And
1. State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department and others
…Respondents
W.P.No.12548 of 2020
Between:
Katikaneni Praveen Kumar, S/o.late
K.Krsihna Rao, aged about 50 years,
Occu:Business, R/o.1st Floor, above Punjab
National Bank, Manovikas Nagar,
Hasmathpath Road, Old Bowenpally,
Secunderabad – 500009.
… Petitioner
And
1. State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Minority Welfare Department and others
…Respondents

Date of Judgment pronounced on : 30.03.2021


MSR,J & TVK,J
::2:: wp_20707_2018&batch

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO


AND
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes/No


May be allowed to see the judgments?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked : Yes


to Law Reporters/Journals:

3. Whether His Lordships wishes to see the fair copy : Yes/No


Of the Judgment?
MSR,J & TVK,J
::3:: wp_20707_2018&batch

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO


AND
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

WRIT PETITION No.20707 of 2018,

WRIT PETITION No.9709 of 2020


AND
WRIT PETITION No.12548 of 2020

% 30.03.2021

# M/s.Sai Pawan Estates Pvtd. Ltd. and


others.

… Petitioner

And
$ 1. The Telangana State Wakf Board, rep. by its Chief Executive
Officer, Nampally, Hyderabad and others.

…Respondents

< GIST:

> HEAD NOTE:

!Counsel for the Petitioner


in W.P.Nos.20707 of 2018 &
12548 of 2020 : Sri K.S. Murthy

!Counsel for the Petitioner


in W.P.Nos.9709 : Sri V.Ravinder Rao, learned Senior
Counsel for Sri Zeeshan Adnan
Mahmood

^Counsel for the Sate of Telangana : Learned Additional Advocate General.


in W.P.Nos.20707 of 2018, 12548
and 9709 of 2020

^Counsel for the respondent 3 & 7 : Sri A.M.Qureshi


in 20707 of 2018 and respondent
No.7 and 8 in W.P.No.12548 of 2020

^Counsel for Telangana Wakf Board in


W.P.Nos. : Sri D.V.Seetharama Murthy, learned
20707 of 2018 and 12548 of 2020 Senior Counsel for Sri Abu Akram,
learned Standing counsel for Telangana
Wakf Board.
MSR,J & TVK,J
::4:: wp_20707_2018&batch

? Cases referred

1. order dt.27.11.2020 in W.P.Nos.14881 and 14885 of 2020 (DB)


2. (2004) 1 SCC 287, at page 291
3. (2020) 6 SCC 557
4. AIR 1967 SC 1
5. (2015) 14 SCC 784
6. (1997) 7 SCC 137
7. (1996) 6 SCC 223
8. (2012) 3 SCC 548
9. 2018 (6) ALD 160 (DB)
10. 2020 (3) ALD 528 (DB)
11. MANU/AP/0743/2016 = (2016) 6 ALD 752
12. 2011 (1) ALD 61 (SC)
13. (1998) 8 SCC 1
14. (2004) 3 SCC 553
15. (2011) 15 SCC 383
16. (2008) 12 SCC 500
17. (2014) 1 SCC 603
18. Civil Appeal No.1600 of 2020 decided on 14.02.2020 by a Three Judge Bench headed by
Chief Justice of India, Justice B.R.Gavai and Justice Suryakant
19. (2010) 8 SCC 726
20. (2014) 16 SCC 51
21. (2014) 16 SCC 38
22. (2019) 4 SCC 698
MSR,J & TVK,J
::5:: wp_20707_2018&batch

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO


AND
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

WRIT PETITION No.20707 of 2018;

WRIT PETITION No.9709 of 2020


AND
WRIT PETITION No.12548 of 2020

COMMON ORDER: (Per Sri Justice M.S.Ramachandra Rao)

Since these three Writ Petitions relate to land in Sy.No.80 of

Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

and since common questions of fact and law arise in these three cases,

they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. There is a three pronged contest/claim to land in Sy.No.80 of

Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

among:

(i) petitioners in these Writ Petitions, who contend that it is

private land belonging to them,

(ii) the State of Telangana represented by its Secretary, Minority

Welfare Department (respondent no.2 in W.P.No.20707 of 2018 and

respondent no.1 in W.P.No.12548 of 2020) and its Principal

Secretary, Revenue Department (respondent no.3 in W.P.No.12548 of

2020 and respondent no.1 in W.P.No.9709 of 2020), District

Collector, Ranga Reddy District (respondent no.4 in W.P.No.20707 of

2018, W.P.No.12548 of 2020 and respondent no.3 in W.P.No.9709 of


MSR,J & TVK,J
::6:: wp_20707_2018&batch

2020), Tahsildar/Deputy Collector, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga

Reddy District (respondent no.5 in W.P.No.12548 of 2020 and also in

W.P.No.9709 of 2020), Joint Sub-Registrar and Registering Officers,

Ranga Reddy District (respondent no.6 in W.P.No.20707 of 2018 and

in W.P.No.12548 of 2020), District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District

(respondent no.5 in W.P.No.20707 of 2018), Principal Secretary,

Home Department of State of Telangana (respondent no.2 in

W.P.No.9709 of 2020), Revenue Divisional Officer, Serilingampally

Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (respondent no.4 in W.P.No.9709 of

2020), Station House Officer, Miyapur Police Station (respondent

no.6 in W.P.No.9709 of 2020), Mandal Revenue Inspector,

Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (respondent no.7 in

W.P.No.9709 of 2020) and Village Revenue Officer, Hafeezpet

Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (respondent

no.8 in W.P.No.9709 of 2020), who contend that it is Government

land; and

(iii) the Telangana State Wakf Board (respondent no.1 in

W.P.No.20707 of 2018 and respondent no.2 in W.P.No.12548 of

2020), Sultan Ahsan-ud-Dowla said to be Mutawalli and

Sajjadanasheen of Dargah Hazrat Salar-E-Auliya (respondent no.7 in

W.P.No.20707 of 2018 and in W.P.No.12548 of 2020) and Dargah

Hazrat Salar-E-Auliya (respondent no.3 in W.P.No.20707 of 2018 and

respondent no.8 in W.P.No.12548 of 2020) , who contend that it is

wakf property.
MSR,J & TVK,J
::7:: wp_20707_2018&batch

Claim of the petitioners

3. Petitioners 1 and 2 in W.P.No.20707 of 2018 contend that there

was a preliminary decree passed on 28.06.1963 in C.S.No.14 of 1958,

a suit for partition filed by one Smt. Dildarunnissa Begum of the

Matruka properties of Khurshhed Jah, a Paigah; by virtue of a

partition final decree dt.26.02.2010 passed by the then High Court for

the State of Andhra Pradesh in Appln.No.132 of 2010 in C.S.No.14 of

1958, they, along with others, are absolute owners and possessors of

land admeasuring Ac.50.00 in Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet Village,

Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District; and that a Receiver-

cum-Commissioner appointed by the said High Court had handed

over possession of the land to them by way of panchanama.

They contend that the Telangana State Wakf Board is

contending that the above land is Wakf property endowed to the

Dargah Hazrat Salar-E-Auliya and the said Board had written a Letter

in File No.M/35/SMTC/2005 dt.16-6-2020 to the Sub-Registrar,

Moosapet, Ranga Reddy District requesting him, with copies marked

to respondents 4 and 5, not to entertain transactions such as sale and

purchase, mortgage, transfer or alienation of lands in Sy.No.80 of

Hafeezpet village.

They seek a declaration that Gazette Notification contained in

F.No.16/RR/REG/2013 published in the Telangana State Gazette

dt.01-11-2014 and the Letter in File No.M/35/SMTC/2005

dt.16-6-2020 are illegal, ultravires the provisions of the Wakf Act,


MSR,J & TVK,J
::8:: wp_20707_2018&batch

1995 and to set aside the same; and for a direction to the respondents

not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of petitioners of

their land of Ac.50.00 in Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet village and to

entertain transactions such as sale and purchase, conveyance, gift and

mortgage in the said land.

4. The petitioner in W.P.No.9709 of 2020 and W.P.No.12548 of

2020 is one and the same.

His case is that he and M/s. Greater Golconda Estates Private

Limited and others became the absolute owners and possessors of an

extent of Ac.47.00 out of Ac.50.00 in Sy.No.80/D, which is part of

Sy.No.80, Hafeezpet Village under a registered deed of partition/out

of Court settlement dt.10.03.2016.

According to him, there was a preliminary decree passed on

28.06.1963 in C.S.No.14 of 1958, a suit for partition filed by one Smt.

Dildarunnissa Begum of the Matruka properties of Khurshhed Jah, a

Paigah ; pursuant to the preliminary decree, an Advocate Receiver had

prepared a scheme of partition; the sharers / decree holders as per the

preliminary decree sold their rights in the preliminary decree in favour

of H.E.H. The Nizam of Hyderabad and Kazim Nawaz Jung, who

were impleaded in C.S.No.14 of 1958 as defendant nos.156 and 157

respectively, and subsequently H.E.H. The Nizam had sold away his

interest in favour M/s. Cyrus Investments Limited; that the said

Company was impleaded as defendant no.206 in C.S.No.14 of 1958;


MSR,J & TVK,J
::9:: wp_20707_2018&batch

after the death of Kazim Nawaz Jung, his wife Smt.Bashirunnisa

Begum and daughter Smt.Rasheedunnisa Begum along with

M/s. Cyrus Investments Limited had executed an assignment deed in

favour of M/s. Greater Golconda Estates Private Limited in respect of

Ac.50.00 in Sy.No.80/D of Hafeezpet Village which was registered as

Document No.2192/2009 dt.07.12.2005 in the office of the District

Registrar, Ranga Reddy District.

He contends that after the execution of the said deed,

M/s. Greater Golconda Estates Private Limited and others filed

Application No.132 of 2010 in C.S.No.14 of 1958 for passing of final

decree; the said Application was allowed on 26.02.2010 and a final

decree was passed in favour of M/s. Golconda Estates Private Limited

and others to an extent of Ac.47.00 and for an extent of Ac.3.00 in

favour of three individuals by name (i) Syed Mohd. Dawar Hussain,

(ii) Noorunnisa Begum and (iii) Mohd. Amar Ibrahim Khan.

He contends that himself, one V.R.M.K. Babji and M/s. Greater

Golconda Estates Private Limited and others, who had all made some

investments in respect of the land, later entered into the registered

settlement deed dt.10.03.2016 (Document No.2630/2016) settling

among themselves, Ac.25.00, Ac.6.00 and Ac.16.00 respectively out

of the Ac.47 in Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet village after demarcating the

same specifically as mentioned in the deed of settlement.


MSR,J & TVK,J
::10:: wp_20707_2018&batch

According to the petitioner, since the State of Telangana was

disputing his claim and contending that it was Government land and

was refusing to allow mutation in revenue records, and it’s officials

were trying to interfere with his and his co-owner’s possession

thereof, he had to file W.P.No.9709 of 2020.

He sought to declare that the State of Telangana and its

employees are not entitled to make any claim whatsoever in respect of

land in Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet Village, more particularly land

admeasuring Acs.50.00 in Sy.No.80/D of Hafeezpet Village; and also

sought directions to the respondent nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 to (i) delete the

entries in the Revenue Records showing the said land as Government

land, (ii) to mutate the said land in favour of petitioner and his co-

owners, and (iii) to restrain the respondents from interfering with the

peaceful possession and enjoyment of petitioner and other co-owners

in Acs.47.00 out of Acs.50.00 in Sy.No.80/D, which is part of the

original Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet Village.

As the Telangana State Wakf Board had also claimed the said

land as a Wakf property, Petitioner also filed W.P.No.12548 of 2020

to declare the impugned Gazette, i.e., the Telangana State Gazette

Part-II, bearing No.79 dt.01.11.2014, wherein Munthaqhab entered in

the Book of Endowment Volume – II at Page No.159 at Sl.No.37 in

F.No.16/RR/Reg/2013, dt.13.12.2013 was published, as null and void

and issued in violation of the provisions of Waqf Act, 1995, principles

of natural justice and Articles 14, 19, 21 and Article 300-A of the
MSR,J & TVK,J
::11:: wp_20707_2018&batch

Constitution of India and contrary to the orders emanating from the

preliminary and final decrees in C.S.No.14 of 1958; and consequently

to declare all the actions taken in furtherance of the impugned Gazette

including but not limited to issuance of the impugned proceedings by

the 2nd respondent-Waqf Board dt.16.06.2020 vide proceedings

bearing F.No.M1/35/RR/SNTC/2005 to respondent no.6 as null and

void.

5. It is the contention of the petitioners that the land in Sy.No.80

of Hafeezpet Village was of a total extent of Ac.484.30 gts., and

Hafeezpet Village was mentioned in item no.37 of Schedule IV to the

plaint in C.S.No.14 of 1958. According to the petitioners, the claim of

the State Government was rejected in respect of land in Hafeezpet

Village at least 7 times as under:

S.NO. DATE PARTICULARS


1 1955 One Mrs. Dildarunnisa Begum, has filed suit for partition of
Matruka Properties of Nawab Kursheed Jah Paigah. The State
of Andhra Pradesh, the predecessor of the State of Telangana,
was Defendant No.53 and it’s Jagir Administrator was
Defendant no.43 and they have contested the suit taking a plea
by claiming title over the properties mentioned in the plaint
schedules including Schedule IV.
2 28-06-1963 The High Court of Andhra Pradesh rejected the plea of the
State and passed a preliminary decree.
3 05.07.1974 The order of the High Court in Appln. No.19 & 114 of 1973,
directing the Government to deliver the suit schedule item 37
lands to the Receiver-cum-Commissioners.
FIRST TIME LITIGATION TO SUPREME COURT
4 18-12-1982 The State of Andhra Pradesh filed Appln.No.44 of 1982 for
amendment of the decree to delete the suit schedule item
Nos.37 (lands in SNo.77,78,80 of Hafeezpet village) of
Schedule-IV from the suit schedule by contending that the
lands are Inam Lands and are not available for partition. The
contention of the State was rejected and the application was
dismissed.
5 24-12-1999 Against the orders passed in Appln.No.44 of 1982, appeal in
OSA No.1 of 1985 was filed before the Division Bench and
the said appeal was dismissed.
MSR,J & TVK,J
::12:: wp_20707_2018&batch

6 2000 The State Government carried the matter to the Supreme


Court challenging the orders passed in O.S.A.No.1 of 1985,
and later on, it withdrew the SLP with a permission to
challenge the preliminary decree.
SECOND TIME LITIGATION TO SUPREME COURT
7 17-02-2001 The State Government then filed appeal in O.S.A.Sr.Nos.3526
& 3527 of 2000, challenging the preliminary decree by
contending that the lands are Inam lands. The said appeal was
dismissed.
(pages 127 - 143 of the paper book filed by the petitioners
in W.P.No.20707 of 2018)
8 16-07-2001 Aggrieved by the above orders dt.17-02-2001, the State
Government had filed SLP.Nos.10622 and 10623 of 2001 and
the same were dismissed. Thus the preliminary decree was
confirmed by the Supreme Court.
(Page 144 of paper book filed by the petitioners in
W.P.No.20707 of 2018)
THIRD TIME LITIGATION TO SUPREME COURT
9 24-08-2001 Thereafter when there are alienations by the sharers by way of
assignment deeds, with regard to the suit schedule item No.37
(which contains Hafeezpet village), the State filed
O.S.A.Nos.19 to 26 of 2001, challenging the orders of
recognition of assignment deeds and the orders of
impleadment of the purchasers as defendants in the suit. The
grounds taken were that the lands are Inam lands and the lands
were not released by the Government. But rejecting the said
contention, the Division Bench of the High Court had
dismissed the appeals.
10 08-04-2002 Aggrieved by the above said orders of the Division Bench
dt.24-08-2001, the State filed SLP.Nos.4463 to 4470 before
the Supreme Court and the same was dismissed.
11 2003 After dismissal of the above SLP, the State had filed Review
Petitions before the High Court in O.S.A.Nos.19 to 26 to
Review the orders, but the same were dismissed by holding
that the lands are paigah patta lands. Thus it is confirmed that
the lands are released and the lands are available for partition
belong to decree holders.
12 05-11-2004 After exhausting the legal battle, the State had constituted a
High Level Committee, and finally,after obtaining the
opinions of the said committee, CCLA and the Advocate
General, the State had issued Memo directing the District
Collector to grant mutations in respect of the suit schedule
lands.
(Pages 146 – 147 paper book filed by the petitioners in
W.P.No.20707 of 2018)
FOURTH TIME LITIGATION TO SUPREME COURT
13 26-04-1999 As per the orders passed in W.P.No.10605 of 1997 the lands in
Hasmathpet (also in item 37 of plaint in the CS) were
identified and declared as lands belonging to Paigah Kursheed
Jahi and are available for partition.
14 11-03-2004 Aggrieved by the orders in the above W.P., the Government
filed W.A.No.2222/2003 and the same was dismissed.
15 05-01-2005 The orders in the above W.A. were challenged in
SLP.NO.11996/2004, before the Supreme Court and the same
was dismissed. (Page 167 of the paper book filed by the
petitioners in W.P.No.20707 of 2018)
MSR,J & TVK,J
::13:: wp_20707_2018&batch

FIFTH TIME LITIGATION TO SUPREME COURT


16 2007 After dismissal of SLP, the State had filed Review WPMP
Nos.11425 & 11426 of 2006 in W.P.No.10605/97 and the said
Review petitions were also dismissed.
17 08-02-2008 Aggrieved by the orders in Review Petitions 11425 & 11426
of 2006, the State filed SLP CC 1574 of 2008 and the same
was dismissed.
Thus the lands covered by the suit schedule lands in C.S.No.14
of 1958 are declared as patta lands. (Page 177 of the paper
book filed by the petitioners in W.P.No.20707 of 2018)
18 18-05-2009 Memo No.59734/JA.1/2005 was issued by the Government of
Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (JA) Department, stating that the
lands covered under Schedule –IV & IV-A of suit schedule
properties of C.S.No:14/1958 have been released by the
Government and it further directed the District Collector to
mutate the names of the Final Decree Holders in the Revenue
Records.
(Pages 178 -179 of the paper book filed by the petitioners
in W.P.No.20707 of 2018)
19 21-05-2010 In compliance of the above Government Memo, the District
Collector, Ranga Reddy vide Ltr.No:LC1/356/2010 directed
the concerned Tahsildars to implement the Government Memo
by taking necessary action for cancellation of assignment if
any as per Court orders and orders of the Government on the
lands covered by C.S.No:14/58 subject to final decree passed
duly following the rules that are in force.
(Page 180 of the paper book filed by the petitioners in
W.P.No.20707 of 2018)
SIXTH TIME AGAINST FINAL DECREE IN SY.NO.78 &
80 OF HAFEEZPET LANDS
20 31-03-2010 Final decree was passed in respect of the subject lands in
Sy.No.78 of Hafeezpet village in Appln.No.239 & 517 of
2009.
21 30-04-2013 The final decree was challenged by the State by filing
O.S.A.Sr.No.3875 of 2012 & batch and the same were
dismissed by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court.
22 15-09-2010 Application No.420 of 2010 was filed for passing of final
decree in respect of the lands to an extent of Ac.116-00 guntas
in Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet village.
The same was dismissed by a learned Single judge
by holding that the lands are not available for partition in view
of Inam/Jagir Abolition Regulations.
23 01-02-2011 The orders of the learned single Judge were appealed in
O.S.A.No.18 of 2010.

By setting aside the orders of the learned single Judge, the


final decree was passed in O.S.A.No.18/2010 by a Division
Bench.
24 2011 Aggrieved by the above final decree, the State had filed
SLP.22420 of 2011 before the Supreme Court on the ground
that the lands are Inam Althmagha lands as per the Inam
Enquiry, and the lands are not released by the Government as
held in the decree, and hence the lands are not available for
partition. Hence, the final decree cannot be passed.

25 26-11-13 The SLP was dismissed.


MSR,J & TVK,J
::14:: wp_20707_2018&batch

Thus the final decree had become final and the decree holders
in the suit in C.S.No.14 of 1958 have became title holders
against the Government in respect of all the items relating to
the suit in C.S.No.14 of 1958.

6. They thus contend that the State of Andhra Pradesh, which is

the predecessor of the State of Telangana, had lost 6 rounds up to the

Supreme Court and it’s claims that the lands were Government lands

was rejected.

7. They further contend that recently when permission for

construction was denied by the Commissioner, GHMC in respect of

plots of land in Sy.No.78 of Hafeezpet Village on the ground that it is

Government land, this Court had set aside the same in A.Salivahana

Reddy v. GHMC and others1 and directed the Commissioner,

GHMC to grant permission recording that the State had lost its title as

mentioned above and the property cannot be said to be belonging to

the State; the said order was also affirmed by the Supreme Court in

SLP (C) No.1702 – 1703 of 2021 dt.27.01.2021; and this being the

seventh time the State had lost its claim, the land in Hafeezpet village

can no longer be claimed as State Government land, and any such

claim is purely vexatious and mala fide.

8. It is contended that after the State lost its claim for the sixth

time on 26.11.2013 in SLP.22420 of 2011 before the Supreme Court,

it instigated and set up the Telangana State Wakf Board to issue a

1
order dt.27.11.2020 in W.P.Nos.14881 and 14885 of 2020 (DB)
MSR,J & TVK,J
::15:: wp_20707_2018&batch

Muntakhab in F.No.16/RR/REG/2013 by way of a Notification

published in the Telangana Gazette on 01.11.2014.

9. This Muntakhab was published by the Telangana Wakf Board

on the basis of an Application allegedly made by Sultan

Ahsan-ud-Dowla, alleged Mutawalli of Dargah Hazrat Salar-E-Auliya

on the basis of an unregistered Wakfnama allegedly executed on

01.01.1955 by one Smt. Muneerunnisa Begum, who was defendant

no.34 in C.S.No.14 of 1958, creating a Wakf in respect of Acs.140.00

in Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet Village for the benefit of the said Dargah,

and after the Wakf Board passed Resolution No.936 of 2013, it

registered the said land as Wakf land under Section 36 of the Wakf

Act, 1995.

10. It is the contention of the petitioners that the State of Telangana

and the Telangana Wakf Board are colluding with each other and

reliance is being placed by the petitioners on an additional counter

affidavit filed on 16.02.2021 in W.P.No.20707 of 2018 on behalf of

both the Telangana State Wakf Board (respondent no.1 in the said

WP) and the State of Telangana represented by its Secretary, Minority

Welfare Department (respondent no.2 in the said WP).

They contend that a common counter affidavit could not have

been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 stating that the subject

property is Wakf property, when the State of Telangana had set up

rival title to the Telangana State Wakf Board in the counter affidavit
MSR,J & TVK,J
::16:: wp_20707_2018&batch

filed by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District (respondent no.4

in W.P.No.20707 of 2018). They also say that in the counter affidavit

filed by respondent no.4, he took the plea in para 13 of his counter

affidavit that the land is ‘Sarkari’ land and that he does not know on

what basis the Telangana State Wakf Board had issued the Gazette

Notification declaring Ac.140.00 in Sy.No.80 as Wakf property.

This mild statement by respondent No.4 and the absence of any

vehement opposition to the claim of the Telangana State Wakf Board,

according to the petitioners, clearly indicates collusion between the

State of Telangana and the Telangana State Wakf Board.

Events after filing of the Writ Petitions :

11. The petitioners in W.P.No.20707 of 2018 had filed I.A.No.1 of

2018 therein seeking interim suspension of the operation and effect of

the Telangana State Gazette Part II bearing No.79 dt.01.11.2014

wherein Munthakab was entered in Book of Endowment, Volume II,

at Page No.159, at Serial No.37 in F.No.16/RR/REG/2013

dt.13.12.2013 as regards land in Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet Village.

12. They also filed I.A.No.3 of 2020 in W.P.No.20707 of 2018

praying that this Court should direct the District Registrar, Ranga

Reddy District(respondent no.5) and the Joint Sub-Registrar, Ranga

Reddy District (respondent no.6) to receive, register and release sale

deeds / gift deed / mortgage deed / release deed / conveyance deed

relating to lands in Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally


MSR,J & TVK,J
::17:: wp_20707_2018&batch

Mandal, Ranga Reddy District by suspending the operation and effect

of the proceedings of the 1st respondent in File No.M/35/SMTC/2005

dt.16.06.2020.

13. On 16.09.2020, a Division Bench of this Court allowed both the

applications.

14. Challenging the same, the State of Telangana filed Civil Appeal

No.4060-61 of 2020 in the Supreme Court of India.

15. The petitioner in W.P.No.12548 of 2020 filed I.A.N.o.1 of 2020

to suspend the operation and effect of the proceedings bearing

No.F.No.M1/35/RR/SNTC/2005 dt.16.06.2020 issued by the

Telangana State Wakf Board (respondent no.2) to the Joint Sub-

Registrar, R.O., Ranga Reddy (respondent no.6); and I.A.No.2 of

2020 to suspend the operation and effect of the Telangana State

Gazette Part II, bearing No.79 dt.01.11.2014 wherein Munthakab was

entered in the Book of Endowment, Volume II, at Page No.159 at

Serial No.37 in F.No.16/RR/REG/2013 dt.13.12.2013 was published

pending disposal of the said Writ Petition.

16. By order dt.11.08.2020, this Court had granted interim

directions in I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2020 in W.P.No.12548 of 2020.

17. Challenging the same, the State of Telangana filed Civil

Appeal Nos.4058-59 of 2020 in the Supreme Court.


MSR,J & TVK,J
::18:: wp_20707_2018&batch

18. On 15.12.2020, Civil Appeal Nos.4058-59 of 2020 and Civil

Appeal No.4060-61 of 2020 were allowed by a common order, and

the above interim orders granted on 11.08.2020 in I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of

2020 in W.P.No.12548 of 2020 and on 16.09.2020 in I.A.Nos.1 and 2

of 2020 in W.P.No.20707 of 2018 were set aside on the ground that

opportunity was not granted to the appellants to file their response.

The Supreme Court directed the appellants to file counter-affidavits

within four weeks and gave a direction to this Court to finally dispose

of these Writ Petitions after the pleadings are complete. The Supreme

Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the rival

contentions.

19. Subsequent thereto, counter-affidavits and reply-affidavits have

been filed by the parties. The arguments of counsel on both sides

were heard on 23.02.2021 and 01.03.2021 and orders were reserved.

20. We shall deal with the issues raised by the petitioners vis-à-vis

the State of Telangana under Part A and with the issues raised by the

petitioners vis-à-vis Telangana State Wakf Board under Part B.

PART - A

The claim of the State of Telangana and its consideration by the Court:

21. Before we deal with the claim of the State of Telangana, it is

important to note that its predecessor, the State of Andhra Pradesh

was impleaded as defendant No.53 in CS No.14 of 1958 and the Jagir


MSR,J & TVK,J
::19:: wp_20707_2018&batch

Administrator of the Government of Hyderabad was impleaded as

defendant No.43 in the said suit.

22. One Smt. Dildarunnissa Begum had filed O.S.41/1955-56 on

file of the Court of additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for

partition of the Matruka properties of Nawab Khursheed Jah, a

Paigah, who had died in 1902. The said suit was withdrawn and taken

on the file of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and renumbered as

C.S.No.14 of 1958. Hafeezpet patta lands, a compact area comprising

Ac.1210 acres, was mentioned at item No.37 of Schedule IV to the

plaint.

23. A preliminary decree was passed on 28.06.1963 was passed

holding that this item is available for partition if they are released by

the Government.

24. The State of Andhra Pradesh filed Application No.44/1982

seeking amendment of the preliminary decree dt.28.6.1963 by

deleting item Nos.35 to 38 and 40 of schedule-IV of the preliminary

decree (including Hafeezpet village) contending that the said decree

was not in consonance with the judgment and the said properties were

not divisible and they belonged to it.

25. On 18-12-1982, Application No.44/1982 was dismissed by this

Court holding that the decree was in consonance with the judgment.

26. O.S.A.No.1 of 1985 was filed by the State Government against

the order dt.18-12-1982 in Application No.44/1982.


MSR,J & TVK,J
::20:: wp_20707_2018&batch

27. On 24-12-1999, O.S.A.No.1 of 1985 filed by the State

Government was dismissed by this Court.

28. The State challenged the order in O.S.A.No.1985 before the

Supreme Court in S.L.P. (C) No.7052 of 2000, but it was withdrawn

on 05-05-2000 by informing the Supreme Court that the State would

file a regular appeal against the preliminary decree dt.28-06-1963 in

C.S.No.14 of 1958 along with application for condonation of delay.

29. O.S.A. (SR) No.3526 of 2000 was filed by the State against the

preliminary decree dt.28-06-1963 along with application for

condonation of delay of more than 38 years. It was specifically

contended by the State that the properties are Inam lands, that they

belong to the Government and were not partible. The said O.S.A.(SR)

was dismissed on 07-02-2001 by a Division Bench of this Court.

30. S.L.P. (C) Nos.10622-10623 of 2001 was filed against the order

dt.07-02-2001 in O.S.A. (SR) No.3526 of 2000. They were dismissed

on 16-07-2001.

31. Thus, the challenge of the State of Andhra Pradesh to the

preliminary decree dated 28.06.1963 in CS No.14 of 1958 miserably

failed.

32. So we are not adjudicating in this Writ Petition the title to land

in Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet village which the petitioners are claiming

through the parties in C.S.No.14 of 1958, vis-à-vis the State of

Telangana. Such adjudication adverse to the State of Andhra Pradesh,


MSR,J & TVK,J
::21:: wp_20707_2018&batch

it’s predecessor, having already occurred as above, such adjudication

binds the State of Telangana too and we are merely taking note of it

and applying it.

33. The denial by the State of Telangana of the right, title or

interest of the petitioner as regards lands in Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet

village in this Writ Petition, in our opinion, amounts to a collateral

attack on the adverse finding about it’s predecessor’s title in

C.S.No.14 of 1958.

34. Can the State of Telangana make such collateral attack and

overcome the adverse finding given by the A.P. High Court about it’s

predecessor’s title in C.S.No.14 of 1958 ?

35. In Rafique Bibi v. Sayed Waliuddin2, the Supreme Court

held:

“ 8.….A decree passed by a court of competent jurisdiction cannot


be denuded of its efficacy by any collateral attack or in incidental
proceedings.”

36. In Nusli Neville Wadia v. Ivory Properties3, the Supreme

Court reiterated:

“21. ….When the court has the power to inquire into the facts, apply
the law, render binding judgment, and enforce it, the court has
jurisdiction. Judgment within a jurisdiction has to be immune from
collateral attack on the ground of nullity. It has co-relation with the
constitutional and statutory power of tribunal or court to hear and

2
(2004) 1 SCC 287, at page 291
3
(2020) 6 SCC 557
MSR,J & TVK,J
::22:: wp_20707_2018&batch

determine. It means the power or capacity fundamentally to entertain,


hear, and determine.” (emphasis supplied)

37. Also, a decision of the A.P. High Court regarding the lack of

title of the State Government cannot be questioned, because it is a

Court of record.

38. As held in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of

Maharashtra4 , the High Court is a superior court of record and under

Article 215 shall have all powers of such a court of record including

the power to punish contempt of itself. One distinguishing

characteristic of such superior courts is that they are entitled to

consider questions of their jurisdiction raised before them. In the case

of a superior court of record, it is for the court to consider whether any

matter falls within its jurisdiction or not. Unlike a court of limited

jurisdiction, the superior court is entitled to determine for itself

questions about its own jurisdiction. The Supreme Court referred to a

passage from Halsbury’s Laws of England where it is observed that

“prima facie, no matter is deemed to be beyond the jurisdiction of a

superior court unless it is expressly shown to be so, while nothing is

within the jurisdiction of an inferior court unless it is expressly shown

on the face of the proceedings that the particular matter is within the

cognizance of the particular court”. If the decision of a superior court

on a question of its jurisdiction is erroneous, it can, of course, be

corrected by appeal or revision as may be permissible under the law;

4
AIR 1967 SC 1
MSR,J & TVK,J
::23:: wp_20707_2018&batch

but until the adjudication by a superior court on such a point is set

aside by adopting the appropriate course, it would not be open to be

corrected by the exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

39. In view of the same, in our considered opinion, it is not open to

the State of Telangana, which is the successor of the State of Andhra

Pradesh, to re-agitate the question of title to lands in Hafeezpet

village. It is also not open to the State of Telangana to collaterally

attack the preliminary decree which is being relied upon by the

petitioners against it, when its attempts to directly challenge it have

failed in this Court as well as in the Supreme Court.

40. Keeping these important facts in mind and also the fact that on

six earlier occasions set out above, the claim of the State Government

had been negatived, we need to examine the case of the State of

Telangana.

Contention No.(a)

41. Firstly, the learned Additional Advocate General referred to the

plea in para-3 of the counter affidavit filed by the District Collector,

Ranga Reddy District (R-4 in WP No.20707 of 2018 and WP

No.12548 of 2020) that in the pahani for the year 1952-53, land in

Sy.No.80 admeasuring Ac.484.31 gts. situated at Hafeezpet village is

shown as Government land classified as “Kancha Sarkari”. The State

has also filed several pahanis for the periods from 1955-56 to 2010-11
MSR,J & TVK,J
::24:: wp_20707_2018&batch

in support of its plea that the State is shown as enjoyer and pattadar of

land in Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet village.

Consideration by the Court of Contention No.(a) :

42. It is settled law that mutation of land in revenue records is not

evidence of title. In H.Lakshmaiah Reddy Vs. Venkatesh Reddy5,

the Supreme Court held:

“8…….The mutation entries do not convey or extinguish any title


and those entries are relevant only for the purpose of collection of
land revenue. The observations of this Court in Balwant Singh case6
are relevant and are extracted below: (SCC p. 142, paras 21-22)
“21. We have considered the rival submissions and we are of the
view that Mr Sanyal is right in his contention that the courts were
not correct in assuming that as a result of Mutation No. 1311 dated
19-7-1954, Durga Devi lost her title from that date and possession
also was given to the persons in whose favour mutation was effected.
In Sawarni v. Inder Kaur7, Pattanaik, J., speaking for the Bench has
clearly held as follows: (SCC p. 227, para 7)
‘7. … Mutation of a property in the revenue record does not
create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title. It
only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay
the land revenue in question. The learned Additional District Judge
was wholly in error in coming to a conclusion that mutation in
favour of Inder Kaur conveys title in her favour. This erroneous
conclusion has vitiated the entire judgment.’”(emphasis supplied)

43. Thus, assuming that there is an entry in the Pahani of 1952-53

or other pahanis that the land in Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet village is

“Kancha Sarkari”, it cannot be held that the State is owner of the said

land.

5
(2015) 14 SCC 784
6
(1997) 7 SCC 137
7
(1996) 6 SCC 223
MSR,J & TVK,J
::25:: wp_20707_2018&batch

Contention No.(b) :

44. Next it is contended that the subject land is a Jagir, that Jagir

systems had been abolished with effect from 15.09.1949; and

thereafter, the right in a Jagir or Paigah stood extinguished and the

property vests in the State Government; and the shareholders in the

Jagir/Paigah land are only entitled to payment of commutation which

was already awarded by the Jagir Administrator on 15.09.1962.

Consideration by the Court of Contention No.(b) :

45. We have already referred to the fact that the State had raised a

plea in OSA (SR) no.3526 of 2000, filed by it against the preliminary

decree dt.28-6-1963 in CS no.14 of 1958, that the lands were inam

lands, that they were not partible and to set aside the preliminary

decree on the said basis and the said OSA was dismissed on 7.2.2001

and the said order was also confirmed in

SLP.(C).No.10622-10623/2001 on 16.7.2001.

46. The then State of A.P. had also filed Review Applications

No.1408-15 of 2001 in OSA.No.19-26 of 2001 in CS No.14 of 1958

raising this very plea and the same was rejected by a Division Bench

of this Court on 31.10.2003. (pg.218-275 of papers filed by petitioner

in W.P.No.12548 of 2020)

47. We may also point out that the land in Survey No.80 and 78 of

Hafeezpet Village were allotted to Defendant Nos.157 and 206 in

equal halves vide report dt.13.07.1984 of the Advocate-Receiver


MSR,J & TVK,J
::26:: wp_20707_2018&batch

appointed by this Court in C.S.No.14 of 1958; Defendant No.206 had

executed assignment deeds in favour of I. Sudarshan Rao and others

and had also given consent for passing of final decree by way of

settlement; in Application No.420 of 2010 on 23.06.2010, though a

learned Single Judge declined to pass final decree in respect of

Ac.115.00 in Sy.No.80/A of Hafeezpet Village, the said order was

reversed by a Division Bench in O.S.A.No.18 of 2010 on 01.02.2011

and the Division Bench passed final decree in Application No.420 of

2010 in favour of vendors of the petitioner. In the order dt.01.02.2011

of the Division Bench in O.S.A.No.18 of 2010, it held as under :

“In a final decree appeal, the correctness of the preliminary


decree cannot be gone into when the appealing party has not filed an
independent appeal against the preliminary decree. However, we
are afraid that we are bound by the orders that were passed in the
suit by co-ordinate Division Benches and the Apex Court and hence
we refrain from making any comment about the correctness of the
orders. We hold that the State had raised all contentions which
include the tenure of the land being Jagir / Inam in the earlier round
of litigation and failed. It has also failed in Review Petitions filed by
it. The argument of the State that the release orders were not passed
as contemplated by the preliminary decree, was also rejected by the
co-ordinate Benches. Hence, we hold that the contentions that are
canvassed by the State before the learned single Judge and
reiterated before us, are devoid of any merit and they stood rejected
earlier in the various orders referred by us in the foregoing
paragraphs. Finality of a proceeding is the foundational bedrock in
a civil litigation and parties cannot be allowed to take defences in
piecemeal or by installments from time to time. Thus, viewed from
any angle, we are unable to accept the findings of the learned single
Judge. We further hold that the learned single Judge has outstepped
the jurisdiction in formulating the points for consideration / issues at
MSR,J & TVK,J
::27:: wp_20707_2018&batch

a final decree stage. Suffice it to say that the order under appeal is
unsustainable in law.” (emphasis supplied)

48. It is also not in dispute that SLP (Civil) No.22420 of 2011 filed

by the Jagir Administrator, Government of Andhra Pradesh and

another against Burugupally Sivaramakrishna and two others was

dismissed on 26.11.2013.

49. In view of the above judgments to which the State Government

was a party, it is clear that this point had been urged earlier by the

State in applications filed in the very suit CS No.14 of 1958 and it had

not had any success. So it is no longer open to it to again raise this

plea and re-agitate the issue in these Writ Petitions.

Contention No.(c) :

50. In para-4 of the counter, the District Collector contended that in

the preliminary decree dated 28.06.1963 in CS No.14 of 1958, an

extent of Acs.1333.00 gts. was mentioned without giving survey

numbers and that Hafeezpet village is mentioned at item No.37 of

Schedule – IV. Thus, the State wants to contend that the Schedule in

the plaint is vague.

Consideration of Contention No.(c) :

51. This point was available to the State when it sought amendment

to the preliminary decree in Application No.44 of 1982, but it was not

taken and the Application was dismissed on 18.12.1982 and was

confirmed in OSA No.12 of 1985 on 24.12.1989.


MSR,J & TVK,J
::28:: wp_20707_2018&batch

52. Again it could have raised the said issue in OSA (SR)

Nos.3526 and 3527 of 2000 challenging the preliminary decree, but

the said appeal was also dismissed on 17.02.2001 and the same was

confirmed in SLP Nos.10622 and 10623 of 2001 which were also

dismissed on 16.07.2001.

53. It cannot be contended that this is a new fact entitling the State,

at this point of time, to question the preliminary decree collaterally in

this writ petition, because it was an existing fact from 1955/1958

when the suit was instituted; and when its challenge directly to the

preliminary decree failed in OSA (SR) Nos.3526 and 3527 of 2000

which were dismissed on 17.02.2001. In our opinion such a plea is

barred by principles of constructive res judicata.

Contention No.(d) :

54. In para-5, the District Collector refers to the compromise

among private parties leading to the filing of Application No.132 of

2010 in Application No.117 of 2008 in CS No.14 of 1958 and the

order dated 26.02.2010 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court

in Application No.132 of 2010 recording the said compromise and it

is contended that the said compromise is not binding on the State

Government as it was not a party. It is further contended that it is not

open to a few parties to a suit for partition (even if they are in a

majority) to compromise the matter between themselves and make

self-allotments of properties that they want to take away.


MSR,J & TVK,J
::29:: wp_20707_2018&batch

Consideration by this Court of Contention No.(d) :

55. But, the learned Additional Advocate General is unable to point

out any principle in law which prohibits a compromise between only

some of the parties to a partition suit when no other decree holder

opposes the said compromise. Also the said compromise was in 2010,

long after the passing of the preliminary decree in C.S.No.14 of 1958,

which was passed on 28.6.1963, and the State failed to get it set aside.

56. In fact the order dated 26.02.2010 in Application No.132 of

2010 itself records that a compromise between some parties alone

cannot effect the possession of other parties to the suit and such a

transaction entered into between certain parties cannot injure those

who are not parties to the transaction, that the Court is not

determining the rights of the parties who were claiming the property

and is only seeking to record compromise which in its opinion was

lawful.

57. However, in our opinion the said observation might apply to

other decree holders in the suit, but not to the State Government

which had lost its claim for title to land in Hafeezpet Village at the

stage of the preliminary decree itself. It is not for the State

Government to raise any such plea because its challenge to the

preliminary decree dated 28.06.1963 passed in CS No.14 of 1958 had

failed in OSA (SR) Nos.3526 and 3527 of 2000 on 17.02.2001 which

was confirmed on 16.07.2001 by the Supreme Court. It cannot set up

any further claim to the land in Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet village on the


MSR,J & TVK,J
::30:: wp_20707_2018&batch

pretext that the compromise decree in Application No.132 of 2010

does not bind it.

Contention No.(e) :

58. In para-5 it is further contended by the District Collector that

mere recording of compromise does not amount to passing of a final

decree.

Consideration by the Court of Contention No.(e) :

59. We may point that in a partition suit normally, a preliminary

decree would declare rights and liabilities of the parties leaving actual

result to be worked out in further proceedings. Then, as a result of

further enquiries conducted pursuant to the preliminary decree, the

rights of the parties are finally determined and a decree is passed in

accordance with such determination, which is the final decree.

60. But, there may be situations where the compromise decree itself

in a partition suit has the effect of allotting a specific portion of the

property to the parties as their share of property. In such

circumstances, no further enquiry is necessary. The decree passed on

the basis of the compromise, in such cases, not only declares the rights

of the parties interested in the properties, but also allots the properties

according to the respective shares of each party. Therefore, it will not

be a preliminary decree but it would be a final decree in the suit.


MSR,J & TVK,J
::31:: wp_20707_2018&batch

61. In Bimal Kumar v. Shakuntala Debi and Ors.8, the Supreme

Court held that a compromise essentially means settlement of

differences by mutual consent, and in such a process adversarial

claims come to rest; the intention of the parties is to put an end to a

litigative battle; and in a partition suit when the parties entered into a

compromise and clearly admitted that they were in separate and

exclusive possession of the properties and the same had already been

allotted to them, no final decree or execution was required to be filed.

It held that in such cases, the rights of the parties had fructified and

their possession was exclusively determined and nothing more

remains to be done.

It declared that if a compromise decree in a suit for partition

allots specific properties to the share of each party, then there is no

necessity for further enquiry; and such a decree did not merely declare

the rights of the several parties interested in the properties but also

allotted the properties according to the respective shares of each party;

and such a compromise decree was not a preliminary decree but it was

the final decree in the suit.

62. If one were to peruse the compromise dt.29.12.2009 entered

into by the parties, which is recorded in application No.132 of 2010,

the parties to the compromise had demarcated their respective

portions in Sy.No.80 as per sketch appended to it in green and red

8
(2012) 3 SCC 548
MSR,J & TVK,J
::32:: wp_20707_2018&batch

colors, and it is mentioned that the respective parties shall contain

themselves with the respective parcels of the land.

63. Thus, in effect, the compromise which has been approved by

the High Court in application No.132 of 2010 is essentially in the

nature of a final decree.

64. Therefore, the plea of the State that no rights would accrue to a

party basing on a preliminary decree, until final decree is passed, and

that the petitioners cannot lay a claim on the said property, on the

basis of the compromise decree, cannot be countenanced.

65. In any event, objections of this nature might possibly be raised

by other decree holders pursuant to the preliminary decree dt.

28.06.1963 in CS No.14 of 1958, but it is certainly not open to the

State Government to raise these pleas since its direct attack on the

preliminary decree in C.S.No.14 of 1958 itself had failed.

Contention No.(f) :

66. In para-6, the District Collector states that there are no

sub-divisions in Sy.No.80 as per Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923

and so the petitioner in WP No.20707 of 2018 cannot claim land in

Sy.No.80/D as it does not exist in the revenue records.

Consideration by the Court of Contention No.(f):

67. In this regard we may point out that the Memorandum of

compromise records that Basheerunnisa Begum and Rasheedunnisa


MSR,J & TVK,J
::33:: wp_20707_2018&batch

Begum (defendant Nos.334 and 335) are legal representatives of

Kazim Nawaz Jung (defendant No.157); that Kazim Nawaz Jung had

acquired right, title and interest of all sharers along with M/s.Cyrus

Investments Ltd. (defendant No.206); that a scheme for partition was

prepared by the Advocate receiver and the Revenue Divisional Officer

in Application No.139/71; that defendants 206, 334 and 335 have

mutually divided the entire land in Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet village into

equal halves as per orders dt.05.11.1970 passed in Application No.142

of 1970; and in the said internal division Sy.No.80/A was allotted to

defendant No.206; and Sy.No.80/B, 80/C and 80/D were allotted to

the defendant Nos.334 and 335; and the internal division had nothing

to do with the revenue sub-divisions and the said division was

confirmed by various orders of the High Court.

68. Under Section 8 (2) of the Telangana Rights in Land and

Pattedar Passbooks Act, 1971, any person who is aggrieved as to any

rights of which he is in possession by an entry made in any record of

rights, can institute a civil suit against any person interested to deny

his title or denying his title to such right for declaration of his right

under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and the entry in the

record of rights shall be amended in accordance with any such

declaration.

69. Thus, the decision of the Civil Court on the issue of title is

binding on the revenue authorities and they should amend the record

of rights in tune with the Civil Court’s decision.


MSR,J & TVK,J
::34:: wp_20707_2018&batch

70. So, the Revenue department officials of the State Government

have to give effect to the orders passed in CS No.14 of 1958 and

create the subdivisions in Sy.No.80 as per the orders passed by this

Court; and since its claim was dismissed even at the stage of

preliminary decree, it cannot, on the pretext of there being no revenue

sub-division, refuse to implement the orders passed by this Court.

71. We may point out that : (i) for Acs.2.00 in Survey No.80/A

(forming part of Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet Village), orders were passed

by the Revenue Authorities vide proceeding No.B/186/2009

dt.29.06.2009 directing mutation of one C. Kalyan, (ii) for Ac.0.27

gts. in Survey No.80/A orders were passed by the Revenue

Authorities vide proceedings No.B/184/2009 dt.29.06.2009 in favour

of G.B. Rajendra Prasad, and (iii) for Acs.5.00 in Survey No.80/A

orders were passed by the Revenue Authorities vide proceedings

No.B/187/2009 dt.29.06.2009, in favour of Singanamala Ramesh

Babu’s name. This was subject matter of W.P.No.19303 of 2016 and

W.P. No.4311 of 2020 where the Revenue Authorities had refused to

implement the above orders. The said Writ Petitions were allowed on

15.12.2020 and a direction was given to the Revenue Authorities to

implement the above proceedings in the Revenue Records including

Pahanies and Record of Rights.

72. In any event, on the pretext of lack of sub-division in the

Revenue Records of Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet Village, the State cannot


MSR,J & TVK,J
::35:: wp_20707_2018&batch

claim ownership of the said land and refuse to abide by the various

orders passed in C.S.No.14 of 1958.

Contention No.(g) :

73. It is the contention of the District Collector that the land

admeasuring Acs.484.31 gts. in Survey No.80 of Hafeezpet Village is

in possession of the Government and that the petitioner has not filed

any documentary evidence to substantiate that M/s. Greater Golconda

Estates Pvt. Ltd. and 8 others have acquired Acs.50.00 in Survey

No.80/D.

Consideration by the Court of Contention No.(g) :

74. After the order was passed in Application No.132 of 2010 on

26.02.2010, there was a modification of the same in Application

No.500 of 2014 on 04.06.2014 and the sketch plan was amended, and

pursuant to the same possession was handed over on 25.04.2015 of

Acs.47.00 in Sy.No.80/D of Hafeezpet Village to the nine parties to

the compromise (referred to parties of the 1st Part) on 25.04.2015

under a Panchanama conducted by Advocate-Receivers – cum –

Commissioners by this Court in C.S.No.14 of 1958.

75. The State cannot refuse to take note of the orders passed by the

High Court and also delivery of possession by Officers of this Court

to the parties to the compromise and it cannot continue to insist that

the same is not evidence of their title or possession.


MSR,J & TVK,J
::36:: wp_20707_2018&batch

76. In fact, in para no.16 of the counter-affidavit filed by the

District Collector in W.P.No.12548 of 2020, he stated that his field

staff stopped illegal construction over 1500 Sq.Yds. of land in

Sy.No.80 by the petitioner. This itself is an admission by the State

that the petitioners are in possession.

77. When the land in Hafeezpet village has been held in the

preliminary decree dt.26.08.1963 to be private land and not land of the

State Government, it was the duty of the Revenue officials of the State

Government to take note of the same and properly reflect ownership

and possession in the Revenue Records. More so, when a Memo

No.28908 / JA.1 / 2004 – 01 dt.05.11.2004 was already issued by the

State of Andhra Pradesh (the predecessor of the State of Telangana)

permitting the Collector, Ranga Reddy District to effect mutation in

land records in respect of land in Survey No.80 of Hafeezpet Village

taking note of the declaration of title of private parties in the

preliminary decree passed in C.S.No.14 of 1958.

78. So, the District Collector, Ranga Reddy and his subordinates

and other officials of the State Government cannot still insist about

their possession on the basis of the Revenue Records which they

deliberately did not alter in spite of the said Memo. It amounts to the

State taking advantage of its own wrong, which is not permissible in

Law.
MSR,J & TVK,J
::37:: wp_20707_2018&batch

79. In the order dt.27.11.2020, passed in Writ Petition Nos.14881

and 14885 of 2020, this Court had held that the State did not deny that

the respondents had granted construction permission for high rise

buildings to M/s. Prajay Engineers Syndicate Limited for an extent of

20 acres, to M/s. Mahendra Constructions Company Limited for an

extent of 10 acres, to M/s. Adithya Constructions Company Limited

for an extent of 10 acres and to M/s. G.K. Constructions also in

Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet village.

80. Therefore, the plea of the State that it is in possession of the

entire extent of land in Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet Village is false to its

knowledge and is made only to mislead the Court.

Contention No.(h) :

81. It is contended by the State that in Application No.132 of 2010

in C.S.No.14 of 1958, the State Government is not made a party, that

the application was between individuals and such orders are not

binding on the Government. It is also contended that transactions

made over Government land are not valid under law and are null and

void.

Consideration by the Court of Contention No.(h):

82. We have already pointed out that the State had contested the

title to land in Hafeezpet Village in the preliminary decree stage itself

and lost it by 17.2.2001 on dismissal of OSA SR 3526 of 2000 and


MSR,J & TVK,J
::38:: wp_20707_2018&batch

this order was confirmed on 16.7.2001 in SLP No.10622-23 of 2001.

So it cannot continue to say that the said land is Government land.

83. Such conduct is clearly vexatious and shows the scant regard it

has to decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court to which it was a

party.

Contention No.(i)

84. The State contended that after merger of State of Hyderabad in

Union of India after police action in 1948, H.E.H. The Nizam

submitted lists of his personal properties to the Government of India

in List Nos.I, II and III, declaring all the properties held by him,

which is called as ‘Blue Book’; and in these lists, the properties at

Hafeezpet Village including the subject land, is not listed. According

to the District Collector, the Government of India issued D.O.No.F2

(1) – H/ 50 dt.30.11.1955 accepting the said lists, except List No.III,

and that Hafeezpet Village is not found in this proceeding.

Consideration by the Court of Contention No.(i):

85. It is a matter of record that after the preliminary decree was

passed on 28.06.1963, the Decree Holders / Sharers (Plaintiff and

Defendants) in C.S.No.14 of 1958, who were entitled to 80% share in

the sale of suit schedule properties, in 1964 – 67, their decreetal rights

to H.E.H. The Nizam (defendant No.156) and Kasim Nawaz Jung

(Defendant No.157). Thereafter, H.E.H. The Nizam sold under a

registered Sale Deed dt.23.02.1967 his undivided half share to


MSR,J & TVK,J
::39:: wp_20707_2018&batch

M/s. Dinshaw Company which was subsequently renamed as

M/s.Cyrus Investments Pvt. Ltd. and the said company was impleaded

as Defendant No.206 in the suit. Thus, Kasim Nawaz Jung and Cyrus

Investments Pvt. Ltd. became entitled to 80% of the suit schedule

properties.

86. As per the scheme of partition prepared by the Advocate-

Commissioner and the Revenue Divisional Officer in Application

No.139 / 1971, Kasim Nawaz Jung and Cyrus Investments were

allotted the entire extent of Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet Village.

87. After the death of Kasim Nawaz Jung, his widow, viz.,

Basheerunnisa Begum and daughter Rasheedunnisa Begum were

added as defendant nos.334 and 335 in C.S.No.14 of 1958, and

inherited the share of Kasim Nawaz Jung.

88. Thereafter, defendant nos.206, 334 and 335 mutually divided

the entire land of Hafeezpet Village into equal halves and Sy.No.80/A

was allotted to defendant No.206, and land in Sy.Nos.80/B, 80/C, and

80/D were allotted to defendant nos.334 and 335. In Sy.No.80/D, the

share of defendant nos.334 and 335 was purchased by 12 parties and

they were allotted Acs.47.00 in Sy.No.80/D.

89. There was no occasion for H.E.H. The Nizam to disclose

about the lands in Hafeezpet Village in the lists he gave to the Union

of India in 1948 because he acquired them in 1964-67 along with


MSR,J & TVK,J
::40:: wp_20707_2018&batch

Kasim Nawaz Jung by buying out all the

decree-holders / shareholders’ shares.

90. Therefore, non-mention of Hafeezpet Village in the ‘Blue

Book’ does not make any difference, and it cannot be said that he had

no right, title or interest in the land in Hafeezpet Village which he

could pass on to M/s.Cyrus Investments Ltd. on 23.02.1967.

Therefore, this plea of the State is made only to mislead this Court and

is thus also rejected.

Contention No.(j) :

91. It is next contended that no final decree had been passed in

respect of Hafeezpet Village and so petitioners are not entitled to any

relief.

Consideration by the Court of Contention No.(j) :

92. This plea is factually incorrect.

93. As pointed out above, even the order dt.26.02.2010 in

Application No.132 of 2010 in respect of Acs.50.00 in Sy.No.80/D is

in the nature of a final decree only.

94. Also in OSA.No.18 of 2010 on 01.02.2011, final decree was

passed in respect of Acs.115.00 in Sy.No.80/A of Hafeezpet Village

which was confirmed on 26.11.2013 in SLP.No.22420 of 2011 by the

Supreme Court. The State was a party to the said order.


MSR,J & TVK,J
::41:: wp_20707_2018&batch

95. That apart, (i) in Application Nos.239 and 517 of 2009 final

decree was passed on 31.03.2010 by this Court in respect of the land

admeasuring Acs.57.33 Gts., in Sy.No.78 of Hafeezpet Village;

(ii) in Application No.1109 of 2007, another final decree was passed

on 24.12.2007 in respect of Acs.40.00 in Sy.No.78 of Hafeezpet

Village.

96. The State is fully aware of the above final decrees passed in

respect of land in Hafeezpet Village, but is deliberately misleading the

Court by saying that there is no final decree. Its stand is not bona

fide.

Contention (k):

97. The respondents referred in the counter affidavit to order

dt.16.08.2018 of a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.11032,

11034 and 11037 of 2018 (which is reported in M/s. Trinity Infra

Ventures Limited Vs. State of Telangana9) and certain

findings/observations made therein. It is sought to be contended that

the observations made by the Supreme Court in the said case relating

to the validity of the preliminary decree and subsequent proceedings

in C.S.No.14 of 1958 are binding on this Court and this Court should

follow them.

9
2018 (6) ALD 160 (DB)
MSR,J & TVK,J
::42:: wp_20707_2018&batch

Consideration by the Court of contention (k)

98. It is not in dispute that the above order in M/s. Trinity Infra

Ventures Limited (9 supra) was challenged by the said party in the

Supreme Court in SLP (C) Nos.24590-24592 of 2018, and the

Supreme Court on 05.10.2018 admittedly passed the following order:

“Heard the learned senior counsel for the parties.


We are not inclined to interfere at this stage, as final decree
is required to be passed.
As agreed to, we make it clear that the observations made
in the impugned order by the High Court shall not be used in any
proceedings and shall not influence the High Court to pass final
decree in accordance with law.
The observations made are hereby diluted.
The Special Leave Petitions are accordingly, disposed of.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.”

99. Moreover, when the order of the High Court dt.16.08.2018 in

W.P.Nos.11032, 11034 and 11037 of 2018 was prohibited to be used

in any proceedings by the Supreme Court in the order dt.05.10.2018 in

SLP (C) Nos.24590-24592 of 2018, the respondents cannot place any

reliance on them.

100. We may also point out that the said order in M/s. Trinity Infra

Ventures Limited (9 supra) related to land in Hasmathpet Village and

not Hafeezpet Village. Also as pointed out above there are already

final decrees passed in respect of Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet Village and

also in regard to Sy.No.78 of Hafeezpet Village. Therefore, the said

order of the High Court in M/s. Trinity Infra Ventures Limited

(9 supra) has no relevance.


MSR,J & TVK,J
::43:: wp_20707_2018&batch

101. We may also note that the counter affidavits of the State

Government officials like the District Collector, Ranga Reddy are

silent as what is the stand of the State of Telangana with regard to

claim of the Telangana Wakf Board and Sultan Ahsan-ud-Dowla and

the Dargah Hazrat Salar-e-Auliya in regard to Ac.140 in Sy.No.80 of

the Hafeezpet village. Even the Additional Advocate General

appearing for it did not make any submissions about it’s case vis-à-vis

these parties.

102. It thus appears to us that the contest between the State and the

Telangana Wakf Board and Sultan Ahsan-ud-Dowla and the Dargah

Hazrat Salar-e-Auliya is a sham contest and their intention seems to

be to somehow or other scuttle the claims of the petitioners.

103. We may also point out that in Application No.19 of 1973 and

Application No.114 of 1973 in C.S.No.14 of 1958 filed in respect of

Hydernagar and Hafeezpet lands, the State Government had taken a

stand that it was prepared to deliver possession of the said lands, but

were unable to do so due to some encroachments having come up in

those lands. This stand is noted in the order dt.05.07.1994 in

Application No.114 of 1973 (filed at page No.226 in W.P.No.12548

of 2020). Having taken such a stand, it is not open to the State to take

advantage of the efflux of time between 1994 and 2021 and increase

in value of the property, to do a volte face and claim that it belongs to

it.
MSR,J & TVK,J
::44:: wp_20707_2018&batch

Conclusion as regards the claim of the State Government

104. Having regard to the above reasons, we reject all contentions

raised by the learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of the

State of Telangana and its Officers referred to in para-2 (ii) and hold

that it had no right, title or interest in the land situated in Sy.No.80 of

Hafeezpet village in any manner.

PART - B

Contention of the Telangana State Wakf Board, Sultan Ahsan-ud-Dowla and


Dargah Hazrath Salar-e-Auliya (respondent Nos.1, 3 and 8 in W.P.No.20707
of 2018 and respondent Nos.2, 7 and 8 in W.P.No.12548 of 2020)

105. According to these respondents, Smt.Muneerunnisa Begum,

daughter of Nawab Mohd. Hafeezuddin Khan Bahadur Zafar Jung

Shams-ud-Dowla Shams-ul-mulk (for short, ‘Zafar Jung’) got

Ac.140.00 in Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet village from her father; under a

Wakfnama dt.01-01-1955, she endowed it and made Wakf of the said

land and appointed her peer Hazrat Qasim Bin Abdullah Sulthan-us-

Salateen Khizri, Shaik-e-Hashami (paternal grand father of Sultan

Ahsan-ud-Dowla) as Mutawalli; based on the Wakfnama, a joint

survey was conducted by the Wakf and Reveue Departments of the

State; and after satisfying about the existence of the Dargah and Wakf

property attached to it, a Muntaqab bearing No.16/RR/Reg/2012 was

issued by the A.P State Wakf Board officially recognizing the Wakf

property through a Board Resolution No.936/213 dt.09-12-2013.


MSR,J & TVK,J
::45:: wp_20707_2018&batch

106. According to the above respondents, the said Wakf along with

its property was registered as Wakf property on 13-12-2013 under

Section 36 of the Wakf Act, 1995 and the said facts were incorporated

in Col.No.5, Endowment Volume II, Telangana at page No.159,

Sl.No.37 as entered in F.No.16/RR/Reg/2012.

107. Thereafter according to the above respondents, the said Wakf

and the Wakf property were notified in the Telangana and Andhra

Pradesh Official Gazettes vide Notification No.79 and 13

dt.01-11-2014 and 27-03-2014, respectively.

108. It is contended that Sultan Ahsan-ud-Dowla was appointed

Mutawalli of the Dargah Hazrat Salar-e-Auliya under Section 63 of

the Wakf Act, 1995 and thereafter he continued as Mutawalli under

Section 42 of the Wakf Act, 1995 vide proceedings issued on

08-06-2017 which was published in the Gazette on 17-08-2017.

109. It is the case of these respondents that extent of Ac.140.00 in

Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet village is Wakf property by virtue of

registration of the same as a Wakf property under Section 36 of the

Wakf Act, 1995. It is contended that under Section 36, the Wakf

Board has power to register a Wakf property, and it had followed the

procedure contemplated in the said provision and registered it as Wakf

property and published it in the Gazette.


MSR,J & TVK,J
::46:: wp_20707_2018&batch

110. It is also contended that petitioner has effective alternative

remedy under Section 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995 and the Writ Petition

is not maintainable.

111. It is contended that suppressing the existence of Wakf in

Ac.140.00 of Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet village since 01-01-1955,

predecessors-in-title of petitioners in W.P.No.20707 of 2018 and

W.P.No.12548 of 2020 obtained a collusive compromise decree on

26-02-2010 in Application No.132 of 2010.

112. Reference is made to the Division Bench judgment of this

Court in Shahnaz Begum Vs. M.S.Murthy and others10 in

O.S.A.No.54 of 2004 and batch and certain observations made

therein.

Consideration by the Court of the above contentions

113. There are several circumstances, which we shall point out, for

not accepting the pleas of these respondents.

(A) No evidence about how Zafar Jung, father of Smt.Muneerunnisa Begum


got the Ac.140 on Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet village

114. In the Wakfnama dt.01-01-1955, there is no recital as to how

Zafar Jung, father of Smt. Muneerunnisa Begum, had gifted her

Ac.140.00 in Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet village. Normally a gift of

immoveable property is required to be done through a registered

document (Sec.123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882). There is

no such registered Deed. No material is placed on record to

10
2020 (3) ALD 528 (DB)
MSR,J & TVK,J
::47:: wp_20707_2018&batch

substantiate the factum of gift and delivery of the property by him to

Smt. Muneerunnisa Begum.

115. The preliminary decree dt.28-06-1963 in C.S.No.14 of 1958

shows that Smt.Muneerunnisa Begum had two sisters Bahadurunnisa

Begum (defendant No.32) and Karimunneesa Begum (defendant

No.33). All of them got 7/192 share from their father Zafar Jung and

1/384 share from their deceased sister Noorunnisa Begum, and thus

they each got 15/384 share. Thus even Smt.Muneerunnisa Begum

was to get a major share only through her father.

116. How Zafar Jung got title to Acs.140.00 in Sy.No.80 of

Hafeezpet Village even before the preliminary decree was passed in

C.S.Noi.14 of 1958, and why he chose only Smt.Muneerunnisa

Begum to give Ac.140 in Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet village and not her

other 3 sisters, is also not explained.

(B) Non-mention of wakf nama dt.1.1.1955 by Smt.Muneerunnisa Begum


in her written statement in C.S.No.14 of 1958

117. It is admitted by the Telangana State Wakf Board and its

supporting respondents that Smt.Muneerunnisa Begum, who allegedly

executed the Wakfnama on 01-01-1955 endowing to Wakf, the

Ac.140.00 in Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet village, is a party (as Defendant

No.34) in C.S.No.14 of 1958 and that in the preliminary decree she

was allotted 15/384 share. (para 6 of the counter affidavit filed by

Respondent no.7 in WP.No.20707 of 2018, para 7 of the Addl.

Counter affidavit filed by the Telangana State Wakf Board in


MSR,J & TVK,J
::48:: wp_20707_2018&batch

WP.No.20707 of 2018, para 18 of the Counter affidavit filed by the

Telangana State Wakf Board in W.P.12548 of 2020) and para 22 (ii)

of the Counter affidavit filed by Respondents 7 and 8 in

WP.No.12548 of 2020).

118. We sought to know from Sri D.V.Seetharama Murthy, learned

Senior Counsel appearing for the Telangana Wakf Board and Sri

A.M.Qureshi, learned counsel appearing for the Mutawalli Sultan

Ahsan-ud-Dowla and the Dargah Hazrat Salar-e-Auliya, whether

Smt.Muneerunnisa Begum had filed a written statement in C.S.No.14

of 1958 as defendant No.34 therein, and if so, whether she had

mentioned in the said written statement that she got Ac.140.00 in

Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet village from her father and she had created a

Wakf of the same under the Wakfnama dt.01-01-1955.

119. They admitted that she did not disclose the fact that she got

Ac.140.00 in Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet village from her father and she

had created a Wakf of the same under the Wakfnama dt.01-01-1955 in

the written statement filed by her in C.S.No.14 of 1958.

120. No reason was assigned why she did not mention it in the

written statement. It was necessary for her to mention these facts

because the Court would have then enquired into it and would have

deleted the said area when it passes the final decree.


MSR,J & TVK,J
::49:: wp_20707_2018&batch

(C) Smt.Muneerunnisa Begum had not got any final decree in C.S.No.14 of
1958 allotting Ac.140 in Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet village to her though she was
given 15/384 share in the properties which are subject matter of C.S.No.14 of
1958

121. An attempt is made by the learned counsel for these

respondents to trace the title of Smt. Muneerunnisa Begum to the

Ac.140.00 of land in Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet village to the preliminary

decree dt.28-06-1963 in C.S.No.14 of 1958, though there are

pleadings in their counter affidavits that the orders in C.S.14 of 1958

are not binding on them.

122. When Smt. Muneerunnisa Begum is, according to the

Telangana Wakf Board and it’s allies, supposed to have got right in

Ac.140 in Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet village by virtue of proceedings in

C.S.14 of 1958, and the Telangana Wakf Board is claiming the said

property as wakf property on the basis of her wakfnama dt.1.1.1955,

they cannot attack the orders in C.S.No.14 of 1958 at all. They are

estopped from doing so. When she herself did not question the orders

in C.S. No.14 of 1958, the Wakf Board and it’s allies cannot question

them.

123. To a specific question put to the learned counsel for these

respondents as to whether Muneerunnisa Begum applied for passing

of final decree in C.S.No.14 of 1958 for her 15/384 share of the

schedule mentioned properties including Hafeezpet village, they

stated that she did not do so.


MSR,J & TVK,J
::50:: wp_20707_2018&batch

124. If Smt.Muneerunnisa Begum, the author of the Wakfnama

dt.01-01-1955, had not got any specific property including the

property of Acs.140.00 in Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet Village through a

final decree in C.S.No.14 of 1958, we are unable to understand how,

even before the filing of C.S.No.14 of 1958 for partition, she could

have executed the Wakfnama dt.01-01-1955 for that property.

(D) The Wakfnama dt.1.1.1955 does not contain her signature but only her
thumb impression though she put her signature in a later regd.sale deed
dt.4.7.1966

125. Also, the Wakfnama dt.01-01-1955 does not bear the signature

of the executant Smt.Muneerunnisa Begum and it is mentioned that

she affixed her thumb mark only because her hands got burnt

accidentally and she did not sign it.

126. Learned counsel for petitioner had filed (at pg.410-442 of the

material papers in W.P.20707 of 2018 along with the reply affidavit to

the counter of respondent no.4) registered sale deed

Doc.No.1978/1966 dt.04-07-1966 executed by Smt.Muneerunnisa

Begum in favour of the HEH Nizam of Hyderabad and Kasim Nawaz

Jung wherein she accepted that there was a compromise between

some parties on 16-08-1961, that on account of other sharers not

joining the compromise, there was a preliminary decree passed, but

there were subsequent proceedings pending, and a final decree was

not passed, and she is selling the shares she secured in C.S.No.14 of

1958 to the purchasers after taking Rs.50,400/-. In this sale deed, she

had put her signature.


MSR,J & TVK,J
::51:: wp_20707_2018&batch

127. It is not in dispute that Smt.Muneerunnisa Begum is not alive

any more and it is difficult to ascertain at this point of time whether

she did execute the Wakfnama dt.01-01-1955 or not. It is also

difficult to ascertain at this point of time whether the thumb mark on

this document is really that of Smt.Muneerunnisa Begum.

128. Moreover, the recitals in the regd. sale deed dt.4.7.1966 show

that she had sold her entire share allotted as per the preliminary decree

in C.S.No.14 of 1958 even before she had got a final decree. So she

did not retain any property for herself after 4.7.1966.

129. This registered sale deed dt.04.07.1966, in our opinion, covers

the share in the land in Hafeezpet Village also, but the sale deed does

not mention about land in respect of which Wakf was allegedly

created by her on 01.01.1955 and exclusion of the said land therefrom.

130. So, the Telangana State Wakf Board cannot say that the land

which is subject matter of the Waqfnama dt.01.01.1955 is the land she

got in C.S.No.14 of 1958.

(E) There is no proof of possession by these respondents of Ac.140.00 in


Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet village for more than 60 years

131. Learned counsel for the Telangana State Wakf Board and it’s

allies were asked to show possession and enjoyment by the Dargah or

the A.P State Wakf Board of this land of Ac.140.00 in Sy.No.80 of

Hafeezpet village at any point of time after 01-01-1955 and were

confronted with the several pahanis filed by the State Government


MSR,J & TVK,J
::52:: wp_20707_2018&batch

which did not show that any portion of Sy.No.80 was Wakf property

or was in possession of the Dargah. They could not point out any

material for the last 60 years to show the possession of the said land

by the Dargah.

132. It is not in dispute that the Chief Executive Officer of A.P. State

Wakf Board had addressed a letter to the Tahsildar, Ranga Reddy

District on 09-01-2015 and 31-01-2015 to demarcate and fix the

boundaries of the Ac.140.00 in Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet village which

is registered and notified as Wakf property and he also wrote a letter

dt.24-07-2015 to the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records,

Ranga Reddy District for conduct of joint survey along with Wakf

Board Surveyor to fix the boundaries of this land.

133. When no action was taken, Sultan Ahsan-ud-Dowla, the

Mutwalli of Dargah Hazrath Salar-e-Auliya filed W.P.No.34686 of

2016 in this Court impleading the District Collector, Ranga Reddy

District, Tahsildar, Serilingampalli Mandal and the Telangana State

Wakf Board as parties and sought a direction to the Revenue Officials

to dispose of the representations and cause survey and demarcation of

Acs.140.00 of land in Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet village.

134. The said Writ Petition was allowed on 26-10-2016 without any

contest by the respondents therein and the District Collector then

issued letter dt.31-01-2017 for conduct of survey.


MSR,J & TVK,J
::53:: wp_20707_2018&batch

135. Thereafter joint survey was conducted on 24-08-2017 based

allegedly on the Wakfnama dt.1.1.1955 by the Revenue and Wakf

Board officials and boundaries were fixed; later there was another

survey on 17.11.2018 also by the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar,

Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District along with the

Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District

and demarcation was done; and a sketch was then supplied vide

proceedings Rc.No.A3/221/2018 dt.31-01-2019 by the Assistant

Director, Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District to the

District Collector, Ranga Reddy District. These are admitted facts.

136. These facts indicate that till 31-01-2019, these respondents

were not even aware of the location of the Ac.140.00 of land allegedly

endowed to the Wakf on 01-01-1955 by Smt.Muneerunnisa Begum.

137. When the location of this Ac.140.00 was not known to these

respondents from 01-01-1955 to 31-01-2019, it cannot be said that

there was any Wakf of this land at all because there was never any

possession of the said land with these respondents.

(F) The surveys under the Wakf Act,1954 and Wakf Act,1995 did not take
note of Acs.140.00 of land in Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet village as a wakf property

138. We may point out that the Wakf Act, 1954 was in vogue when

the Wakfnama dt.01.01.1955 was executed by Smt. Muneerunnisa

Begum.

139. Section 4 of the said Act required the State Government to

appoint for the State a Commissioner of Wakfs and as many


MSR,J & TVK,J
::54:: wp_20707_2018&batch

Additional and Assistant Commissioners of Wakfs as may be

necessary for the purpose of making a survey of Wakf properties

existing in the State at the date of commencement of the Act.

140. Under Section 25 the Wakf Board was enjoined to register any

Wakf whether created before or after the commencement of the Act

on an application for registration to be made by the Mutawalli.

Sub-section (8) of Section 25 stated that in case of Wakfs created

before the commencement of the Act, every application for

registration shall be made, within three months from such

commencement and in the case of Wakfs created after such

commencement, within three months from the date of creation of the

Wakf.

141. No reason is assigned why the then Mutawalli of the Dargah

Hazrat Salar-E-Auliya did not get the property of Ac.140.00 in

Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet Village allegedly endowed to the said Dargah

registered from 01.01.1955 till 2013.

142. The Wakf Act, 1954 was repealed by the Wakf Act, 1995

which came into effect from 01.01.1996.

143. Similar provisions relating to survey of Wakfs are contained in

Section 4 of the Wakf Act, 1995 and under sub-Section (1) of Section

4 thereof, Survey Commissioners appointed by the State had to make

a survey of Wakfs in the State. If such a survey was done, why the

Wakf created by Smt. Muneerunnisa Begum was not noticed by the


MSR,J & TVK,J
::55:: wp_20707_2018&batch

Survey Commissioner or other employees at all, and why it was not

included in the list of Wakfs to be published by the State under

Section 5 of the Act till December, 2013, is not explained by the

respondents.

(G) Non conduct of inquiry under sub-section (7) of Sec.36 of the Wakf
Act,1995 vitiates the registration of the subject land as Wakf property on
13-12-2013 under sec.36 of the said Act.

144. Section 36 of the Wakf Act, 1995 states:

“36. Registration.—(1) Every waqf, whether created before or after


the commencement of this Act, shall be registered at the office of the
Board.
(2) Application for registration shall be made by the mutawalli:
Provided that such applications may be made by the waqf or his
descendants or a beneficiary of the waqf or any Muslim belonging to the
sect to which the waqf belongs.
(3) An application for registration shall be made in such form and
manner and at such place as the Board may by regulation provide and
shall contain following particulars:—
(a) a description of the waqf properties sufficient for the identification
thereof;
(b) the gross annual income from such properties;
(c) the amount of land revenue, cesses, rates and taxes annually payable
in respect of the waqf properties;
(d) an estimate of the expenses annually incurred in the realisation to the
income of the waqf properties;
(e) the amount set apart under the waqf for—
(i) the salary of the mutawalli and allowances to the individuals;
(ii) purely religious purposes;
(iii) charitable purposes; and
(iv) any other purposes;
(f) any other particulars provided by the Board by regulations.
MSR,J & TVK,J
::56:: wp_20707_2018&batch

(4) Every such application shall be accompanied by a copy of the


waqf deed or if no such deed has been executed or a copy thereof cannot
be obtained, shall contain full particulars, as far as they are known to the
applicant, of the origin, nature and objects of the waqf.
(5) Every application made under sub-section (2) shall be signed and
verified by the applicant in the manner provided in the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) for the signing and verification of pleadings.
(6) The Board may require the applicant to supply any further
particulars or information that it may consider necessary.
(7) On receipt of an application for registration, the Board may,
before the registration of the waqf make such inquiries as it thinks fit in
respect of the genuineness and validity of the application and correctness
of any particulars therein and when the application is made by any
person other than the person administering the waqf property, the Board
shall, before registering the waqf, give notice of the application to the
person administering the waqf property and shall hear him if he desires
to be heard.
(8) In the case of auqaf created before the commencement of this Act,
every application for registration shall be made, within three months
from such commencement and in the case of auqaf created after such
commencement, within three months from the date of the creation of the
waqf:
Provided that where there is no board at the time of creation of a
waqf, such application will be made within three months from the date of
establishment of the Board.
. ….” (emphasis supplied)

145. Therefore, before registering a Wakf under Section 36 on the

basis of an application made by the Mutawalli, the Wakf Board has to

make enquiries in respect of genuineness and validity of the

application and correctness of particulars therein.

146. Thus, the A.P. State Waqf Board should have verified whether

Smt.Muneerunissa Begum was really the owner of the Acs.140 of


MSR,J & TVK,J
::57:: wp_20707_2018&batch

land in Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet village and whether it was really

Smt.Muneerunissa Begum who executed the Wakfnama

dt.01.01.1955, why no revenue record proves that it was a wakf

property, and why for the previous 58 years, no attempt had been

made to register it.

147. Learned counsel for these respondents were specifically asked

by the Court, having regard to the above suspicious circumstances,

what sort of enquiries the A.P State Wakf Board did, before

registering the Ac.140.00 in Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet village as Wakf

property on the basis of the Wakfnama dt.01-01-1955 allegedly

executed by Smt.Muneerunnisa Begum.

148. Except saying that enquiries were made and proper procedure

was followed, no material is placed before this Court to believe that

there were any enquiries done at all by the A.P State Wakf Board

before registering this property under Section 36 of the Wakf Act,

1995.

149. No public notice appears to have been issued inviting

objections from persons interested in the property to object to the

registration of the said property as Wakf property under Section 36 of

the said Act.

150. In Hazarath Ameer Sha Vali Dargah Association v. State of

Andhra Pradesh and others11, one of us (MSR,J) had occasion to

11
MANU/AP/0743/2016 = (2016) 6 ALD 752
MSR,J & TVK,J
::58:: wp_20707_2018&batch

consider Section 36 of the Wakf Act, 1995 and had held that under

sub-section (7) of Section 36, it was incumbent on the part of the A.P.

State Wakf Board to make enquiries as to the genuineness and validity

of the application made by the applicant to treat the subject property

as a wakf property.

In fact, in that case a Notification had been issued by the Wakf

Board inviting objections and the Writ Petitioner therein had filed

such objections specifically stating that there was a Civil Court decree

obtained by him on 03.11.1999 against the Wakf Board. But without

considering the said objections, a Muntakhab had been issued by the

Wakf Board. This Court held that the Wakf Board clearly violated

sub-section (7) of Section 36 of the Act and that the Wakf Board

cannot override, by an executive act, a Civil Court decree which

attained finality under Section 36 of the Act.

151. In the facts of the present case also, it is our opinion that

without any enquiry about the ownership of the subject property by

Smt.Muneerunnissa Begum or her father Zafar Jung, and in the

absence of evidence of enjoyment by the Dargah of the said property

for more than 50 years, the A.P.State Wakf Board could not have

registered it as Wakf property at all. If such a negligent and careless

action is done by a body such as the Telangana Wakf Board, it is

possible that not just private properties, but any public property such

as Raj Bhavan or the High Court or the Secretariat would end up

being notified as Wakf properties.


MSR,J & TVK,J
::59:: wp_20707_2018&batch

152. We are therefore constrained to hold that there was no enquiry

done in accordance with law by the A.P. Wakf Board under Sub-

Section (7) of Section 36 of the Wakf Act, 1995 before registering

Ac.140.00 of land in Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet village as Wakf property.

153. In fact, it is our opinion that no reasonable person, in the

position of the A.P. Wakf Board, could have, on the basis of material

produced by Sultan Ahasan-ud-Dowla, the alleged Muthawali and

Sajjadanashin of the Darga Hazrath Salar – E – Auliya, accepted that

Zafar Jung actually owned Acs.140.00 in Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet

Village, that he was entitled to gift it to his daughter

Smt. Muneerunissa Begum, and she did execute the Wakfnama on

01.01.1955 endowing the said property a Wakf property.

(H) No explanation for registering the land as Wakf Property on 13.12.2013


when the Wakf was created on 1.1.1955

154. We may also state that Sub-Section (8) of Section 36 of the

Wakf Act, 1995 is similar to Sub-Section (8) of Section 25 of the

Wakf Act, 1954 and it directs that in the case of a Wakf created before

the commencement of the Wakf Act, 1995, like the Wakf created

under the Wakfnama 01.01.1955 by Smt. Muneerunnisa Begum,

Application for registration should be made within three months from

the date of commencement of the Wakf Act, 1995, i.e., within three

months from 01.01.1996, i.e., before 01.04.1996.

155. No explanation is forthcoming from these respondents why this

time limit was not adhered to while registering the Wakf created
MSR,J & TVK,J
::60:: wp_20707_2018&batch

under the Wakfnama 01.01.1955 by Smt. Muneerunnisa Begum on

13.12.2013, eighteen years after the Wakf Act, 1995 came into force.

(I) Sec.107 or Sec.108 A of the Wakf Act, 1995 are not attracted

156. It is contended by the Telangana State Wakf Board and it’s

allies that Section 107 of the Wakf Act, 1995 makes Limitation Act,

1963 inapplicable to Wakf properties and under Section 108A of the

Wakf Act, 1995, the said Act overrides any other statute which is

inconsistent with it; and therefore the delay in registration of the Wakf

till 2013 though it was created on 01.01.1955, has no bearing on the

matter.

157. This contention is misconceived because the Limitation Act,

1963 is inapplicable for initiation of proceedings such as eviction,

etc., under the Act in relation to Wakf property. But when the Wakf

Act itself in Section 36(8) fixes a time limit, it has to be adhered to

and Section 108A cannot be invoked. While we are not saying that the

time limit in Section 36(8) is mandatory, there has to be valid

explanation for the inordinate delay in registering the Wakf in 2013

when it was created in 1955.

(J) The concept ‘once a wakf, always a wakf’ is not attracted

158. It is then contended by these respondents that registration of

the Wakf is not important, and property which belongs to Wakf will

always retain its character as Wakf; and so the Ac.140.00 in Sy.No.80

of Hafeezpet Village which was endowed on 01.01.1955 as wakf


MSR,J & TVK,J
::61:: wp_20707_2018&batch

property by Smt.Muneerunissa Begum continued to be Wakf property,

and its nature cannot be changed as private property.

Consideration of contention (J) by the Court

159. In our opinion, Smt. Muneerunnisa Begum or her father are not

shown by the respondents to have any valid title to this land in

Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet Village prior to 01.01.1955.

160. Smt. Muneerunnisa Begum did not even apply for a final

decree for allotment of this Ac.140.00 to her share as per her 15/384

share in the preliminary decree dt.28.06.1963 passed in C.S.No.14 of

1958.

161. When she had no right in the land, she cannot create a Wakf

and endow this land to the Dargah.

162. So the principle “once a property is a Wakf, it always remains

Wakf” is not attracted in the instant case.

(K) Observations and findings in Shahanaz Begum (10 supra) have no


relevance to the instant cases :

163. Shanaz Begum (10 supra) also arose out of C.S.No.14 of 1958

pending on the file of this Court, but it related to Sy.No.172 of

Hydernagar Village, Balanagar Mandal of Ranga Reddy District and

not Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal of Ranga Reddy

District.
MSR,J & TVK,J
::62:: wp_20707_2018&batch

164. Certain claim petitions filed under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C.

filed by third parties to the suit had been allowed by a common order

dt.26.10.2004 by a learned single Judge of this Court. This order had

been set aside by a Division Bench of this Court on 23.06.2006 in

O.S.A.Nos.52 to 59 of 2004.

165. The order dt.23.06.2006 was challenged in Civil Appeal

Nos.3327 of 2014 and batch in the Supreme Court. The Supreme

Court set aside the order of the Division Bench on 05.03.2014 and

remanded the O.S.A.s back to this Court.

166. It was specifically contended by the third parties, who had filed

the claim petitions, that they were in possession and enjoyment of the

land in Sy.No.172 of Hydernagar Village and their predecessors in

title had been granted pattas by the Revenue Secretariat of H.E.H. The

Nizam of Hyderabad in 1947 itself; that this land did not belong to

Kurshid Jah Paigah or his legal heirs or the State Government, and it

was not available for partition to the legal heirs of Kurshid Jah. Their

pleading was that the preliminary decree in C.S.No.14 of 1958 in

regard to the land in Sy.No.172 of Hydernagar Village was obtained

without impleading the occupants and pattedars of the said land, that it

was a collusive decree and was obtained by playing fraud on the

Court.

167. This Court ultimately agreed with the contentions of the third

party claimants that in relation to land in Sy.No.172 of Hydernagar


MSR,J & TVK,J
::63:: wp_20707_2018&batch

village, orders were procured in C.S.No.14 of 1958 behind their back

without impleading them and the said orders were collusive in nature.

It held that the land in Hydernagar Village was Jagir land, but prior to

1948, pattas were granted to cultivating ryots by the Revenue

Secretariat of H.E.H. The Nizam in 1947; that title to this land passed

to the cultivating ryots prior to 1948 itself and they had validly

conveyed title to the claim petitioners. It also held that the land in

Hydernagar Village did not vest in the State Government after the

Hyderabad Jagirdar Regulation Abolition, 1358 Fasli came into

operation; and the Revenue Department of the later State Government

accepted these pattas as genuine and implemented the same by issuing

a sethwar in 1947 and also a Faisal Patti of 1978-79.

168. This Court held that in proceedings under Order 21 Rule 97 to

101 of C.P.C., the executing court can also consider the question

whether a decree is binding on the objector / claim petitioner as well

as the question whether the decree was obtained by playing fraud on

the Court or a party. It held that the decree holders failed to show that

the land in Sy.No.172 of Hydernagar Village was the Matruka

property of Kurshid Jah Paigah. It declared Order dt.24.04.1998

passing final decree in Application No.517 of 1998 in C.S.No.14 of

1958 as null and void and even the preliminary decree dt.28.06.1963

in C.S.No.14 of 1958, insofar as lands in Sy.No.172 of Hydernagar

Village is concerned, was procured by playing fraud on the Court.


MSR,J & TVK,J
::64:: wp_20707_2018&batch

169. Whatever observations were made by this Court in Shahanaz

Begum (10 supra) were specifically made only in the context of the

special facts in relation to Sy.No.172 of Hydernagar Village only, and

they cannot be read out of context by the respondents and made

applicable to land in Hafeezpet Village as well.

170. Moreover, in the said case, there was a direct attack on the

preliminary decree and other orders passed in regard to the said land

by third parties in possession of the land in Sy.No.172 of Hydernagar

village in appeals arising out of orders passed under Order 21 Rule 97

to 101 C.P.C. by the learned single Judge.

171. But, in the instant case, there is only a collateral attack, which is

impermissible.

172. Therefore, none of the respondents can rely upon the judgment

in Shahanaz Begum and others (10 supra) for any purpose in

relation to land in Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet Village.

(L) The Writ Petitions are not barred by existence of alternative remedy
under Sec.83 of the Wakf Act,1995

173. Lastly we shall consider the maintainability of the Writ

Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this Court.

174. It is the contention of the respondents that petitioners have an

effective alternative remedy under Section 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995

and that the present Writ Petitions are therefore not maintainable. The

counsel for 2nd respondent contended that the petitioner ought to


MSR,J & TVK,J
::65:: wp_20707_2018&batch

approach the Wakf Tribunal constituted under Section 83 of the Act to

challenge the impugned Munthakhab and that a Writ Petition under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. Strong

reliance was placed on the decision in Board of Wakf, West Bengal

v. Anis Fatma Begum and another12.

175. We do not agree with this contention for more than one reason.

176. As stated in the beginning of this order there is a three pronged

fight between the petitioners, the State Government and the Telangana

Wakf Board.

177. While the Wakf Tribunal constituted under the Act can decide

the nature of the Wakf property, it cannot decide inter se dispute

between the petitioners and the State Government because no such

jurisdiction is conferred on it. So the remedy of filing a suit before the

Wakf Tribunal it is not an effective alternative remedy in the

circumstances of the case where the State and the Wakf Board both

also claim this land.

178. That apart, judicial review is part of the basic structure of the

Constitution of India. It is settled law that no statute can explicitly or

implicitly exclude judicial review by the High Court under Article 226

of the Constitution of India. The Wakf Act, 1995 also contains no

exclusion of judicial review by the High courts under Art.226 of the

Constitution of India. It is not possible to infer an absolute exclusion

12
2011 (1) ALD 61 (SC)
MSR,J & TVK,J
::66:: wp_20707_2018&batch

of judicial review by the High Court under Art.226 of the Constitution

of India as regards the statutory actions of a Wakf Board, such as the

one under Sec.36 of the Wakf Act, 1995, in the current Constitutional

scheme.

179. As long back as in 1998, the Supreme Court in Whirlpool

Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai and others13,

had declared that existence of alternative remedy would not operate as

a bar to entertainment of a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India where (i) the Writ Petition has been filed for

enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or (ii) there has been a

violation of principles of natural justice or (iii) the order or

proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction and (iv) vires of an Act is

challenged.

180. In ABL International Ltd. and another Vs. Export Credit

Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and others14, the Supreme

Court held that merely because one of the parties to the litigation

raises a dispute in regard to the facts of the case, the Court

entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is

not always bound to relegate the parties to a suit; and that in an

appropriate case, Writ Court has jurisdiction to entertain a Writ

Petition involving disputed questions of fact and there is no absolute

bar for entertaining a Writ Petition even if the same arises out of a

13
(1998) 8 SCC 1
14
(2004) 3 SCC 553
MSR,J & TVK,J
::67:: wp_20707_2018&batch

contractual obligation and/or involves some disputed questions of

fact.

It held that merely because a question of fact is raised, the High

Court will not be justified in requiring the party to seek relief by the

somewhat lengthy, dilatory and expensive process by a Civil Suit

against a Public Body.

181. In Syed Maqbool Ali v. State of U.P15, the Supreme

Court had held:

“When a writ petitioner makes out a case for invoking the


extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the
High Court would not relegate him to the alternative remedy of a civil
court, merely because the matter may involve an incidental
examination of disputed questions of facts. The question that will
ultimately weigh with the High Court is this: whether the person is
seeking remedy in a matter which is primarily a civil dispute to be
decided by a civil court, or whether the matter relates to a dispute
having a public law element or violation of any fundamental right or
to any arbitrary and high-handed action. (See the decisions of this
Court in ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn.
of India Ltd. (13 supra) and Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. v.
Vardan Linkers16.)”

182. In C.I.T v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal17 also the Supreme Court

declared:

“It is settled law that non-entertainment of petitions under


writ jurisdiction by the High Court when an efficacious alternative
remedy is available is a rule of self-imposed limitation. It is essentially
a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law.
Undoubtedly, it is within the discretion of the High Court to grant

15
(2011) 15 SCC 383
16
(2008) 12 SCC 500
17
(2014) 1 SCC 603
MSR,J & TVK,J
::68:: wp_20707_2018&batch

relief under Article 226 despite the existence of an alternative remedy.


However, the High Court must not interfere if there is an adequate
efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner and he has
approached the High Court without availing the same unless he has
made out an exceptional case warranting such interference or there
exist sufficient grounds to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under
Article 226....

The Court, in extraordinary circumstances, may exercise the


power if it comes to the conclusion that there has been a breach of the
principles of natural justice or the procedure required for decision has
not been adopted.”

183. In Popatrao Vyankatrao Patil Vs. State of Maharshtra and

others18, the Supreme Court held therein that when a petition involves

disputed questions of fact and law, the High Court would be slow in

entertaining the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India;

however it is only a rule of self-restraint and not a hard and fast rule;

even if there are disputed questions of fact which fall for

consideration but if they do not require elaborate evidence to be

adduced, the High Court is not precluded from entertaining a petition

under Article 226 of the Constitution.

It observed that such power is to be exercised in exceptional

circumstances where the High Court finds that the action of the State

or its instrumentality is arbitrary and unreasonable and as such

violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It applied the

decision in ABL International (14 supra).

18
Civil Appeal No.1600 of 2020 decided on 14.02.2020 by a Three Judge Bench headed by Chief
Justice of India, Justice B.R.Gavai and Justice Suryakant
MSR,J & TVK,J
::69:: wp_20707_2018&batch

184. In Anis Fatima Begum (12 supra), cited by learned counsel for

respondents, the subject-matter of the dispute related to the

demarcation of the wakf property in two distinctive parts, one for

wakf-al-al-aulad and the remaining portion for pious and religious

purposes. The demarcation was challenged on the ground that it was

not in consonance with the provisions of the wakf deed.

The Supreme Court held that it is the Tribunal constituted under

Section 83 of the Act which will have exclusive jurisdiction to deal

with these questions inasmuch as these questions pertained to

determination of disputes relating to wakf property and the

jurisdiction of the civil court or High Court under Article 226 was

ousted.

In that context, the Supreme Court opined that in all matters

pertaining to Wakfs, person aggrieved should approach the Wakf

Tribunal and the Civil Court should not entertain any matter.

185. There are other decisions which deal with exclusion of Civil

Court’s jurisdiction such as Ramesh Gobindram (Dead) Through

L.Rs. Vs. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf19, Bhanwar Lal v.

Rajasthan Board of Muslim Wakf20 and Faseela M. v. Munnerul

Islam Madrasa Committee21.

19
(2010) 8 SCC 726
20
(2014) 16 SCC 51
21
(2014) 16 SCC 38
MSR,J & TVK,J
::70:: wp_20707_2018&batch

186. In fact, the decision in Anis Fatma Begum (12 supra) was

considered both in Bhanwar Lal (20 supra) and in

Faseela M (21 supra) and the broad proposition laid down in Anis

Fatma Begum (12 supra) to the effect that all matters pertaining to

wakfs should be filed before the Wakf Tribunal only and should not

be entertained by the civil court or by the High Court under Article

226 of the Constitution of India was not approved. So the said

decision in so far as it holds that all matters pertaining to wakfs should

be only filed before the Wakf Tribunal, is therefore no longer good

law.

187. Even in Punjab Wakf Board v. Sham Singh Harike22, the

decision in Anis Fatma Begum (12 supra) was impliedly held to be

per incurium by the Supreme Court. Even the said case dealt with

only the issue exclusion of jurisdiction of the Civil Court and there is

nothing contained in it excluding judicial review under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India in relation to Wakf properties.

188. In the instant case, in our opinion, Smt. Muneerunnisa Begum

had no title to Ac.140.00 in Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet Village as on

01.01.1955 when she allegedly executed the wakfnama endowing this

land as Wakf property. That apart, there is no valid explanation from

the Telangana State Wakf Board, Sultan Ahsan-ud-Dowla and the

Dargah Hazrat Salar-E-Auliya on the several aspects enumerated by

us as (A) to (K) supra.

22
(2019) 4 SCC 698
MSR,J & TVK,J
::71:: wp_20707_2018&batch

189. Also, the Wakfnama dt.01-01-1955 is not shown to have seen

the light of the day for the next 50 years after its alleged execution

before any forum, and appears to have been ‘discovered’ by these

respondents only after the State Government lost S.L.P. (C) No.22420

of 2017 on 26-11-2013 before the Supreme Court and the order

dt.01-02-2011 in O.S.A.No.18 of 2010 passed by this Court granting

final decree for Ac.116.00 in Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet village was

upheld by the Supreme Court.

190. It is contended by the petitioners that the State Government set

up the Telangana State Wakf Board to pass a Board Resolution

No.936 of 2013 dt.09-12-2013, register the said property under

Section 36 of the Wakf Act, 1995 as Wakf property on 13-12-2013

and issue Muntaquab F.No.16/RR/Reg./2013 and publish it in the

gazette of Telangana State on 01-01-2014. We find considerable

force in the said submission of the petitioners for the following

reasons :

(a) While there is a clear conflict between the State of

Telangana and the Telangana State Wakf Board and each is

questioning the title of the other to the subject property in Sy.No.80 of

Hafeezpet Village, during the arguments, no effort is made by the

Additional Advocate General for the State of Telangana to question

the claims of the Telangana State Wakf Board;and by Sri

D.V.Sitarama Murthy, Senior Counsel for the Telangana State Wakf


MSR,J & TVK,J
::72:: wp_20707_2018&batch

Board to question the claim of the State of Telangana, and it seemed

that there is a sham contest between these two respondents.

(b) Also a common additional counter affidavit is filed on

behalf of the Telangana State Wakf Board and the State of Telangana

supporting the case of the Telangana State Wakf Board. This also

suggests strong possibility of collusion between both of them.

(c) We have already referred to the fact that the Chief

Executive Officer of A.P. State Wakf Board had addressed a letter to

the Tahsildar, Ranga Reddy District on 09-01-2015 and 31-01-2015

to demarcate and fix the boundaries of the Ac.140.00 in Sy.No.80 of

Hafeezpet village which is registered and notified as Wakf property

and he also wrote a letter dt.24-07-2015 to the Assistant Director,

Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District for conduct of joint

survey along with Wakf Board Surveyor to fix the boundaries of this

land.

When no action was taken, Sultan Ahsan-ud-Dowla, the

Mutwalli of Dargah Hazrath Salar-e-Auliya filed W.P.No.34686 of

2016 in this Court impleading the District Collector, Ranga Reddy

District, Tahsildar, Serilingampalli Mandal and the Telangana State

Wakf Board as parties and sought a direction to the Revenue Officials

to dispose of the representations and cause survey and demarcations

of Ac.140.00 of land in Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet village.


MSR,J & TVK,J
::73:: wp_20707_2018&batch

The State of Telangana rep. by the District Collector, Ranga

Reddy District which was 1st respondent in this W.P. did not file any

counter affidavit opposing grant of relief to the petitioner therein

stating that the said land is Government Land and there was no

necessity to conduct any survey. Had there been a bonafide contest

between them, the State Government would have opposed the said

Writ Petition and refused to survey the land.

The said Writ Petition was allowed by this Court on

26-10-2016 and the District Collector then issued letter dt.31-01-2017

for conduct of survey and thereafter a joint survey was conducted on

24-08-2017 based allegedly on the Wakfnama dt.1.1.1955 by the

Revenue and Wakf Board officials and boundaries were fixed; that

thereafter there was another survey on 17.11.2018 also by the Deputy

Collector and Tahsildar, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy

District along with the Assistant Director of Survey and Land

Records, Ranga Reddy District and demarcation was done; and a

sketch was then supplied vide proceedings Rc.No.A3/221/2018

dt.31-01-2019 by the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records,

Ranga Reddy District to the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District.

These are admitted facts.

This shows the close cooperation extended by the officials of

the Revenue and Survey Departments of State of Telangana to the

Telangana State Wakf Board to identify the Ac.140 in Sy.No.80 of

Hafeezpet village.
MSR,J & TVK,J
::74:: wp_20707_2018&batch

In fact, the entire endeavour of the State of Telangana and the

Telangana State Wakf Board appears to be to deny the claim of

petitioners to the land in Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet Village,

Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District somehow or the other,

even if there exists conflicting claims inter se between them.

191. In view of the above facts and circumstances, and the above

referred conduct of the State of Telangana and it’s officials and the

Telangana State Wakf Board, it would be a travesty of justice to ask

the petitioners to avail the lengthy, dilatory and expensive process by

a Civil Suit before the Wakf Tribunal constituted under Sec.83 of the

Wakf Act, 1995.

There are, also in our opinion, no complicated questions of fact

or law arising in the matter to compel the petitioners to avail the

remedy before the Wakf Tribunal.

Also the actions of the A.P. State Wakf Board, the predecessor

of the Telangana State Wakf Board in registering the land as Wakf

property under Section 36 of the Act, without any enquiry under Sub-

section (7) of Section 36 of the Act is clearly arbitrary, illegal and

violates Article 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India.

So we hold that this Court is entitled to entertain W.P.No.20707

of 2018 and W.P.No.12548 of 2020, that the same are maintainable,

and the petitioners need not avail the remedy under Sec.83 of the

Wakf Act, 1995.


MSR,J & TVK,J
::75:: wp_20707_2018&batch

192. We also declare that the Telangana Wakf Board could not have

written a letter in File No.M/35/SMPC/2005 dt.16.06.2020 to the

respondents 5 and 6 in W.P.20707 of 2018/ Respondent no.6 in

W.P.No.12548 of 2020 prohibiting registrations of land in Sy.No.80

or 80/A to D of Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga

Reddy District as the said land does not belong to it or to the State

Government and the said letter is set aside.

Conclusion :

193. Accordingly,

(i) W.P.Nos.20707 of 2018, 9709 of 2020 and 12548 of 2020 are

allowed;

(ii) It is declared that the land in Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet village,

Serlingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District is neither State

Government land nor is it Wakf property, and that it is private

property;

(iii) It is declared that the act of registration of Acs.140.00 in

Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga

Reddy District as Wakf property attached to Dargah Hazrat

Salar-E-Auliya under Section 36 of the Wakf Act, 1995 by the

then A.P. State Wakf Board on 13.12.2013 is arbitrary, illegal

and violative of Article 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India

and also in violation of principles of natural justice, the Wakf

Act, 1995; and the said actions including Board Resolution


MSR,J & TVK,J
::76:: wp_20707_2018&batch

No.936/2013 dt.09.12.2013 of the A.P. State Wakf Board,

Muntakhab F No.16/RR/REG/2013 published in Telangana

Gazette Part II, bearing No.79 dt.01.11.2014 wherein Muntakhab

was entered in Book of Endowment, Volume II at Page No.159,

at Serial No.37 in F.No.16/RR/REG/2013 dt.13.12.2013 was

published, are set aside and declared as null and void;

(iv) The Telangana State Wakf Board is directed to delete the entry

made in Column No.5, Book of Endowment Volume II,

Telangana at Page 159 and Serial No.37 in

F.No.16/RR/REG/2013 dt.13.12.2013 in respect of the land in

Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga

Reddy District;

(v) Letter in File No.M/35/SMPC/2005 dt.16.06.2020 written by the

Telangana State Wakf Board to the Respondents 5 and 6 in

W.P.No.20707 of 2018/Respondent no.6 in W.P.No.12548 of

2020 objecting to registrations of alienations by way of sale, gift,

mortgage, conveyance etc., of land in Sy.No.80 or 80/A to D of

Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy

District, is set aside;

(vi) The respondents in all Writ Petitions including the

Tahsildar/Dy.Collector, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy

District shall permit registrations under the Registration Act,

1908 of the above land by way of sale, gift, mortgage,


MSR,J & TVK,J
::77:: wp_20707_2018&batch

conveyance etc without raising any objection that the said land

belongs to the State of Telangana or that it is Wakf property;

(vii) a direction is issued in W.P.No.9709 of 2020 to respondents 1, 3,

4 and 5 therein to delete the entries in the Revenue Records

showing land in Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally

Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as ‘Sarkari’ and recording the

State Government’s possession;

(viii) a direction is issued in W.P.No.9709 of 2020 to respondents 1, 3,

4 and 5 to sub-divide the land in Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet village

into Sy.No.80/A, 80/B, 80/C and 80/D as per (a) order

dt.05-11-1970 in Application No.142 of 1970 in C.S.No.14 of

1958, (b) as per the decree dt.26-02-2010 in Application No.132

of 2010 in C.S.No.14 of 1958 as modified by the order dt.04-06-

2014 in Application No.500 of 2014 and (c) as per deed of

partition document No.2789 of 2016 dt.10-03-2016 between the

petitioner in W.P.No.12548 of 2020 and W.P.No.9709 of 2020;

(ix) respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 in W.P.No.9709 of 2020 are further

directed to mutate Ac.50.00 in Sy.No.80/D of Hafeezpet village,

Serilingampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in favour of the

petitioner and his co-owners;

(x) the above actions (iv),(vi),(vii),(viii) and (ix) shall be carried out

within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

and
MSR,J & TVK,J
::78:: wp_20707_2018&batch

(xi) The State of Telangana and it’s Officials and the Telangana State

Wakf Board and it’s employees are restrained from interfering

with the peaceful possession of the petitioners in respect of the

land claimed by them in Sy.No.80 or 80/D (forming part of

Sy.No.80) of Hafeezpet village, Serilingampalli Mandal, Ranga

Reddy District; and

(xii) the State of Telangana and the Telangana State Wakf Board shall

each pay Rs.50,000/- as costs to each of petitioners in W.P.20707

of 2018 and to the petitioner in W.P.9709 of 2020 within 4

weeks.

194. As a sequel, all miscellaneous applications in these cases, not

already ordered by the Court, shall stand rejected.

____________________________
M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J

____________________
T.VINOD KUMAR, J

Date: 30-03-2021

Note :-

Furnish CC by 31.03.2021.

L.R. Copy to be marked : YES

B/o.
Svv/Vsv/Ndr

You might also like