HrG H cou Rr F3'1[i:,ti'.

[ o' oo'o
3!ffi
*'1i,i3hT,1.^i,?1,%,#3i,?.o",=J'u*

PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE
SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK
REDDY
WR T TITI N o 243 2
OF 019
Between:

yk?#:r#p,Tfl
;T,?lhi,I::'ft i,:!'"',,.I.fi :,;ff .H,iB:.H[:!?
"fl'ff
2. Smt.Megavath Sarvan.
Asffi :';:x,f;"1*;i;.i{,,,}[d,?::,,i,:nA,,?1., jp,"t,l, j&:?T.il,,ff
:l1

AND ...PETITIONERS

' RS:r"J ;lf'3!3ffS;ouo"ntent or Revenue, secretarrat Buirdinss, Hyderabad.

2. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy
District, Lakadikaput, Hyderabad.
3. The Telangana Waqf Board, Rep. by
its C.E.O., Nampaily, Hyderabad.
4 The Tahsirdar, lvaheshwaram lVrandar,
rvahes,waram, Ranga Reddy District.
5, The District Registrar, Ranga Reddy
District.

...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution
crrcumstances stated in the,affidavit fit"; of rndia praying that in the
totg issr1g.31 appropriate Writ, order,
th;;;t,;:ihe High Court may be pteased
particurarry, one in the
";;i;;i;;;'more
nature of writ of l,4andamus decraring tne action
or lespondents
belonging to the petitioners bein! an extent 'Acs.g_ooin keeping
- the rand
Maheshwaram Vi,age and Mandai or n"ng;'nuddy
lf in sv.N"o.zio or
District, in the webrand
register/prohibitory rist as wakf rand, being m"aintaineo-by
ill,egal' contrary to the provisions of the neg'istratio;
the stn ,"iponi!r,t, u,
nct and consequenfly direct the
Sth respondent to derete the extent of A-"cs.9-00 in Sy. No.2B0
Village and Mandar of Ranga Reddy District, beronting'to the petitioneis,
oi rr,lrri"ih*urr.
webland register/prohibitory list, being maintain""o oy the '5th i".p"'"0""t tn"
lro,
uv
receiving the sare documents, as per the provisions of ihe Registratio,i
nci,-in ft,e
interest of justice, and pass

lA NO: 1 OF 201 I

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in
the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the-High court may be pleased to direct
the respondent No.s to entertain the sale deed oi other documents to be presented
for registration by the petitioners in respect of land an extent of Acs.g-00 in
Sy.No.2B0 of Maheshwaram Village and Mandal of Ranga Reddy District, without
reference to the webland reg ister/prohibitory list being maintained by the 5th
respondent and its subordinate officers on compliance with the provisions of the
Registration Act, in the interest of justice, and pass
 (s):SRl E MADAN MOHAN RAO
'Counsel for the Petitiont
(TG)
for the Respont ents: GP FOR REVENUE
Counsel
/ wing: ORDER
The Court made the folk
 ,/
c

I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

WRIT PETITION No.24322 of 2019

ORDER:

ljeard Sri [:. \.1adan Nlohan Ii.ro, tht' learnecl Senior Counsel

appearing for tl.r c. pr.tilioncrs, tlrc li,arnccl (lovernmc.nt I)le;rcler [or

Revenue for respondent Nos.1,2,,1 ancl 5, and Sri Abu Akram, the

lcarnc.rl Standing Counscl for responclent No.3 - Wakf Board. With

their consent, the Writ Petition is clisposed of at the stage of

a dmission.

2. This rvrit petition is filed questiorling the action of the

respondents 1n showing the Iancl bclgnging to the petitioners,

ac'lmeasuring Ac.9.00 guntas, ln Survey No.280, Maheshwaram

Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, in the webland

register/prohibitory list as wal<f land.

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has

statecl that the subiect lancl is a Private patta land and Certificate of

Ownership uncler 38-I of the Anclhra l'raciesh (I'elangana Arca)

1'enancy and Agricultural Lancls Act, 1950 (for short,'the Tenancy

Act'), was issued in favour of the petitioners' grandfather viz.,

Lakiya, way back on 37.07.1975. Lear-ned Senior Counsel has drawn

the attention of this Court to the Munthakhab, dated 74.70.2005,

issued by the Wakf Board, which shows that one Syed Jamaluddin

appears to have created a Munthakhab in favour of the Wakf Board,

on the basis of which, the subject property has been registered under

I '.-<.-.E-_.
 2

Sectior 36 of the \tac1f r\ct, 1955 (for shor.t, 'thc Warqf Act,), ancl

enterec in the Book of Endow,rnents at l)ar:c No,l.16, Sl.No.11. I hat

except 'egistering the said pl.operty, no notification has been issuc,cl

tiil dah r. That by virtue of issuance of Sectiou 38-E Certificate in

favour tf the grandfather of the petitioners, the said Jarnaluddin has

lost all his rights and interest over the subject property. Therefore,

the Mu rthakhab is not valid in the eye of law and the same has to be

discard td. The learned Senior Counsel has stated that the pahani of

the yea'1950 shows the name of the pattadar as Mulla Baksh, and

not the name of the said Jamaluddin. That the grandfather of the

petitior lrs i,vas recogniscd as protcctecl tt.ant ancl was issuecl 3g-[]

Certific te, and as the said 38-E Certificate has r.rot been challenge.l,

it has b, con-re final. 'lhat once 3Bi., Cortificate is issut,d i. favour of a

Protectr d Tenant, the sarnc is conclusir o prool ol ownership trot

only ag rinst the pattadar but all the persons claiming through the

pattada . Moreover, as seen from the Munthakhab clated 14.10.2005,

the said Munthakhab was created for the purpose of Islamic Social

Service iociefy. But, in the letter dared 12.1.1.20-10, addressed by the

Presider t of Islamic Social Service Society to the Collector, Ranga

Reddy I tistrict, it is stated that syed Jamaluddirr cronated the subject

land to the society for the benefit of Muslim Maternity Hospital ancl

that the wakf Board has no power or authoritl, to claim the subject

propert\, as there is no publication of \otification in the official

Gazette, as required under Section 5(2) oi the Waqf Act. Therefore,

the que ;tion of shon,ing the subject larrcl in the prohiLritorv
r".a 3

properties list as wakf ProPerty cannot be countenanced either on

facts or on question of law

4. The learned Standing Counsel for the Wakf Board has stated

that once the Munthakhab is created, the subject proPerty will

remain as wakf property forever ancl the writ Petition is not

maintainable. Tl-rat the petitioners have to approach the Wakf

'f ribunal seeking cleclaratiorr of title, but, thev cannot agitate their

rights before this Court under Article 225 of the Constitution of

India. Learned Standing Counsel has further stated that as per the

provisions of the Tenancy Act, more particularly, Section 102 (e)

thereof, tenancy is not applicable to the wakf land, and therefore, the

petitioners cannot claim the subject land as tenancy land' Hence, the

Sub-Registrar has rightly refused to entertain the documents

presented by the petitioner. I'hat the writ petition is liable to be

clismissed in limine ancl the Petitioners have to be relegated to the

Wakf 'l-ribunal for redressal oi their grievance. Unless and until the

r.r'akf cleecl, which is regrstered ut-tc'ler St'ction 36 of the \A'aqf Act' is

set aside, the petitiorrers will not have any right over the subiect

land. Moreover, as per the provisions of Section 22-A of the

Registration Act, l90ti, the wakf latrds are on Par with the

Governmentlandsand,assuch,theyarerightlyincludedinthelist

of prohibited Properties and there is no need to issue any seParate

Notification as contemplated under section 22- A of the Registration

Act, 1908.
 5. H :ard the rival bmissions macle
su
bv the counsels ancl
perused the documents filed.

6. A perusal of the documents shows

that one Lakiya,who was
the prot,rcted tenant, was issued
3g_E Certificate, dated 3.j,.07.1975,

aide File No.B/413/LRE/75,

n respect of the land, admeasuring
Acs.19.3t guntas, in Survey
No.2g0 of Maheshwaram Village
and
Mandal, langa Reddy District.
After the c.leath of Lakiya, the
names
of his leg tl heirs were recorded
in the rer.enue records as pattaclars
and poss, ssors of the subject
iar.rrl r,irle procee,ciings
ciatecl 27.10.19gg.
Furtherm rre, the pahani of
the r.ear 1950 anrl other
pahanies filecj b-y
the petitir,ners clearlv shorv
the nanne oi the p61i366,
of the sulrject
la nt1 as'lv ulla Baksh, atrd the
tenant as ,Lakiva,

7. Eve r though the learned Standing

Counsel for Wakf Boarcj
has vehen ently argued
that the subject property is
part and parcel
of the prr perty, which has been
registered on 14.10.2005,
under
Section 36 tf the Wakf
Act, and which has been entered
in the Book
of Endowr: tents, on the basis
of which, Munthakhab has
been issued
arde F.No.1 t/Z/t977,
dated 74,70.2005, and tha*he
Wakif of the said
property is Syed Jamaluddiry
there is nothing on record
to show that
the said Sy rd Jamaluddin
is the owner ancJ Lrossessor <>f tl_re subjc,ct
property as on 14.10.2005.
\4orc,over, as p(,r the provisions
of the
Tenancy A :t, once the
eu,,psrqhip Certiiica tr, is
given to the
protected t( nant under the
provisions oi the Tenancy
Act, the saiti
 5

Protected Tenant will become the absolute owner and possessor of

the property having all rights over the subiect ProPerty for which

the 38E Certificate has been issued and the original landlord wiII

lose right, title and interest over the said property.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kotaiah ts' The Property

AssociatiorroftheBaptistChutches(Pat.)Ltil'l,heldthatprotected

tenant has a rigllt to becotne full owner and, therefore, his tenancy

cannot be terminated. lt is further held that protected tenant cannot

be clispossessed illegally either by the landlord or anybody else. If so

dispossessed, the'fahsildar has to exercise power under Section 32

of the Act.

9 ln Sada a. The Tahsilclar, Lltnoor, Adilabad Disttict2' a F:ull

Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held as under:

is clear lrom 5.38-E that it is for these'ProEcEd tenants'

"lt
uho arc fnally dzclared to be 'protected tenants' and includcd in the
Register prepared tlat purpox and for whom protccted tenancy
t'or
certifcates hatte been issued, that otonership 'ishts are enoisaged
in S'

j8-E(1), suhiect of coursc, to tlrc limitation u'ith regard to exVnt of

lnldings ns specilietl itt -5. 38(7) and to tfu pr()f iso to 5 38-E(1) Once
persons tolto lattd ttn the dates or t'or the periods mentioned in Ss'
ldd
34, 37 anrt 37-A anti fhc requirement of Trhysicnl possession
on tlrc dates

reqtLirtd in i/losd sc( lrurls is snlisfed, such persons hate become

'protected tettt,tlts'. On(:e a person bccottrcs n ptotcctetl tetulnt' lrc earns a

qualifcation lo l't'r'trtrtr' fitt tttt\rcr lty t'orce o.f sttttLe' suhjtcl of coursc to
tlrc qualifctttion ragntrltng e ant it-S' 38(7) afid to tlt? prottiso ttt
5 38'
E(1). T'lrcre is to rtqturenerrt it tlr Act thnt hc should also be in
possessionon tlu dntr spacifiett in the nrtttlicatittn issued in S' i8-E(1)
or
Tlrc toords'all tands hetrt by protected tenants is ntore a dtscription

' AIR tg8g sc tz5g

' rcat e) ALT 749 (FB)
 ,:,,::,:,,:*,;y:
utrich the rigtrt ns
protected tenant
has been
"to phvstcat possession
on the date
spet tfcd in * ,"ofrr';r:.'::,requiring

10. In )anjeeztayya Nagar Co-operutioe

House Building
Society
Ltd. o. S. Mallareddy
alias paroathalu3,
a Division Bench of the
Andhra p.adesh
High Court held as
under:
.,A
protectcd te t

;:';:,y:,:'!i:i;;;,:.ii.;i':rtl'::,:'::':"":*''
s 38t io t ':::'::, (1)
rtis rt irs orquirurt nhrrrtr:r
li.l"n',,',,,t1',rfrr,':
ttu lttrul' ttn' o'igit,al
ceaser to hc lant totder
tlaotpner ur|i,. ,' l''- .:: \rtrt't tltt'tttiSrnal
,ot rk )e nny titre, rte '0" inrtdholder trirr
u,ns ,',,'',-'
otttl
L'otrl'l rtL't cot'r'y
tlre lot d to third uny title itt
rna :d)n4\',tettt
party lertfon' tlrc Ilttrll
purpot ted to haw lnt ty to u'lrru the lnnd is
conreyetl th.e landholfur' cotrLl
tlte ers tuhile protert*r not detty the title
trrr,! of
subsequenthl h"**"
and th, cugh him
of "'"" ,hrlorur, ,,r,,,-ni,
his,or:r" F o tle /act that tla
signetl ts ?ttitnesses leirs of tlrc tenants
,rn ,rrr' s hehoeen
the thit l palty,
tla ttrigttral l'u'ttihotder
the inferencz and
*'u ntiLst lnt'e ncq,iesced
courd n tt he drar,n, rn tr.re sale
since on .","'dates
of executiorr of
not con inue as protected sate deeds tltey
did
,rthc
'"nnnts of tle oiginal tandholder,
become , bsolute or,,rr;r:.:' but lad

71. As see r from the

record , 38-E Cerfificate
was issued in favour
of Lakiya in respect
of the su bject property
on 31.07,1975 whereas
the subl'ect p roperty
has been registered
untler Section 36
Wakf Acr on 4.10.2005 of thc.
i.e , almost after
a iapsc ol 30 years.
Ihere is
no evidence t r show
tl_ra t t he Wakif
- Jamalucitlin is t.he owner
possessor of t and
re subject pr opertv
or that hc x.ts har
rrrg righf titlc
anii interes t o ,er
the s u lrject pro1.rg1f,,,,
3 s on 1.1,10.2005.
Moreover
38-E Certificatr
rssued in favour
of the grandfather
of the petilioners
has not been
c r allenged and
the same has become
t fi nal. Therefore
AIR .t 99a AN DHR,
, PRADESH
57
I

that showing the ProPertY of

the
this Court is of the oPlnron
countenanced
in the prohibited properties list cannot be
petitioners

and the same has to be deleted'

12.lnviewoftheabovesettledlegalpositionandonthefactsof
is allowed and the respondent No'5 is
this case, the writ petition
in
the subiect land' admeasuring Ac'9 00 guntas'
directed to delete

Maheshwaram Viliage and Mandal' Ranga Reddy

Survey No.280,

the properties list Consequently' the

I)istrict, from Prohibited
the
Authority is directed to receive' register and release
Registering
of the
by the petitioners' subiect to compliance
documents Presented
Act'
of the liegistration Act' 1908' and lndian Stamps
provisions
in any way preclude the
wakf Board from
1899. This order cloes uot

its right' title and interest before an Appeliate

establishing

AuthoritY, if theY are so advised

pending' if any' shall stand

The miscellaneous petitions
as to costs
closed. There shall be no order
SD/.P.P ADMANABHA REDDY
AS Srsuur REGISTRAR
I
//TRUE COPY//
I
SECTION OFFICER

To - ^^-^,+H^hr
ot telangana' Department .,f
of Pa\/cnr le Secretariat
Revenue' Secretartat Buildings
tsullolngs'
1. The Secretary, State

A.li.:",+i,,:,,:llli,,:!,81?ySt?ilt|iii'SliiSl''lllf, B:il|Y.',T3i,11, District'

Maheshwaram' Ranga Reddy
4. The Tahsildar, Maheshwaram Mandal'
District'
5. The District Registrar' Ranga Reddy
6. 11 L.R. CoPies'
Affarirs'
Union of India' Ministry of Law' Justice and Company
7. The Under Secretary'
New Delhi.
Hyderabad'
Library, High court Buirdings,
g. The Terangana Advocates Association
 (

I
I

9. One CC to SRl. E t\ ADAN MOHAN RAO Advocate [OPUC]

10.Two CCs to GP FO I REVENUE (TG) , High Court for the State of Telangana
lourl
11.Two CD Copies
12.One Spare Copy
SA
SB
 HIGH COURT

I
I

DATED:0211212(21
!

€\y
6*-
rF;u .a
q-

s\.
N.
i)

ORDER

WP.No.24322 cf 2019

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

WITHOUT CO iTS.

v" x
j\ \'"