J_2023_SCC_OnLine_TS_3820_kanirudhreddy1_gmailcom_20240330_050326_1_22 (1)

SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 1 Saturday, March 30, 2024

Printed For: K Anirudh Reddy
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2023 SCC OnLine TS 3820
In the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad

(BEFORE ALOK ARADHE, C.J. AND N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR, J.)
Munawar Sultana and Others … Appellants;

Versus
Gosula Ramulu and Others … Respondents.
Writ Appeal Nos. 683, 698, 1137, 1353, 1355, 1392, 1395, 1403,
1409, 1410, 1427, 1450 and 1753 of 2018
Decided on December 4, 2023
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Counsel for the appellants in W.A. Nos. 683, 698, 1137, 1409, 1410,
1450 and 1753 of 2018 : Mr. Y. Srinivasa Murthy, learned Senior
Counsel, representing Mr. Mir Masood Khan
Counsel for the appellants in W.A. Nos. 1353, 1355, 1392, 1395,
1403, 1427 of 2018 : Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned Senior Counsel,
representing Mr. Abu Akram, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana
State Wakf Board
Counsel for the respondents : Mr. A. Venkatesh, learned Senior
Counsel, representing
Mr. P. Sri. Harsha Reddy and Mr. R. Sushanth Reddy Mr. Harender
Pershad, learned Senior Counsel and Special Government Pleader
attached to the office of learned Advocate General
The Order of the Court was delivered by
ALOK ARADHE, C.J.:— These intra-court appeals emanate from the
common order dated 24.03.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge
by which the order dated 07.11.2006 passed by the Joint Collector,
Ranga Reddy District has been set aside and the writ petitions have
been allowed. In this order, the parties are referred to as per their
rankings before the learned Single Judge.
(i) FACTS:
2. Facts giving rise to filing of these appeals briefly stated are that
one Gosula Muthaiah and Sama Narasimham were in cultivating
possession of land measuring Acs.25.04 guntas each of survey Nos.
113 to 120 of Karmanghat Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy
District (hereinafter referred to as ‘subject land’). Late Mohd. Miskeen
was the inamdar of the subject land and Mohd. Bikkan was one of the
sons of aforesaid inamdar. The rights of aforesaid Gosula Muthaiah and
Sama Yadi Reddy (hereinafter referred to as ‘protected tenants’) were
recognized as protected tenants under Sections 34 and 35 of the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,

1950.
3. On the basis of an enquiry report dated 07.08.1965 submitted by
the Commissioner of Wakfs in an enquiry which was conducted under
Section 4(4) of the Wakf Act, 1954, the State Government published a
notification dated 27.07.2006 by which subject lands were declared as
wakf property.
4. The aforesaid notification dated 27.07.2006 was subject matter of
challenge in W.P. Nos. 20868, 20869 and 20870 of 2006.
5. The legal heirs of the protected tenants filed an application under
Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams
Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the 1955 Act’) before the
Revenue Divisional Officer, who inter alia held that the legal heirs of
protected tenants were in possession of the subject land on the date of
vesting of the land i.e., 20.07.1955 as well as 01.11.1973. It was
further held that the classification of the subject lands was changed
from year to year without any valid orders. However, the Revenue
Divisional Officer by order dated 08.05.1998 concluded that in view of
the inconsistency of entries in the revenue records, with regard to the
nature of the lands, the legal representatives of protected tenants are
not entitled to occupancy rights certificate.
6. The aforesaid order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer was
questioned by the legal heirs of the protected tenants in an appeal
under Section 24 of the 1955 Act before the Joint Collector. The Joint
Collector by an order dated 07.11.2006 by placing reliance on the
notification dated 27.07.2006 issued by the State Government inter alia
held that the subject lands are wakf properties and only an institution
can be granted occupancy rights certificate in view of the proviso to
Section 4(1) of the 1955 Act and not individuals.
(ii) ORDER of LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE:
7. The legal representatives of the protected tenants have
questioned the order passed by the Joint Collector in W.P. Nos. 24461,
24462, 24463 of 2006 and W.P. No. 8140 of 2007. The learned Single
Judge by an order dated 24.03.2017 inter alia held that the writ
petitions are maintainable notwithstanding the alternative remedy. It
was further held that common judgment in L.P.A. Nos. 76 and 78 of
2000 and batch operates as res judicata and binds the Wakf Board and
the legal heirs of late Mohd. Miskeen. The learned Single Judge set
aside the order dated 07.11.2006 passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga
Reddy District and remitted matter to the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Ranga Reddy District to consider as to who amongst the petitioners in
the writ petitions are entitled to occupancy rights certificate under the
1955 Act. It was directed that neither the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board
nor the legal heirs of the protected tenants shall be allowed to
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
participate in the said proceedings and the proceedings shall be

completed within a period of three months. Accordingly, the writ
petitions were allowed. In the aforesaid factual background, these intra
-court appeals have been filed.
(iii) SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF of APPELLANTS IN W.A. No. 683
of 2018:
8. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants in W.A. No. 683 of 2018
while inviting the attention of this Court to Sections 6, 7 and 83 of the
Wakf Act, 1995 has submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in
examining the validity of the notification dated 27.07.2006 declaring
the subject land to be wakf property in a writ petition under Article 226
of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that part of the
property namely land measuring Acs.8.13 guntas of survey No. 115
was acquired under the provisions of the Requisitioning and Acquisition
of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1952
Act’). It is also submitted that on 13.08.1982, an arbitrator was
appointed under Section 8(1)(b) of the 1952 Act and an award dated
25.03.1985 was passed. The Arbitrator held that the land measuring
Acs.8.13 guntas of survey No. 115 is not a wakf property. It is
contended that there is no time limit for issuance of notification under
Section 5(2) of the Act and there is no delay in issuance of notification
dated 27.07.2006. It is further contended that writ petitioners have no
right rights in respect of land in question. In support of the aforesaid
submissions, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme
Court in State of Orissa v. Ram Chandra Dev1 .
9. It is pointed out that the notification issued under the 1952 Act
was challenged in a writ petition, namely W.P. No. 4684 of 1987, which
was dismissed by an order dated 10.07.1987 by a learned Single Judge
of this Court. It is further pointed out that the order passed by the
learned Single Judge was affirmed in an appeal by order dated
10.11.1988 passed in W.A. No. 1768 of 1987. It is also pointed out that
the aforesaid order of the Division Bench has attained finality.
10. It is urged that the award dated 25.03.1985 is a nullity, as
under Section 8(1)(b) of the 1952 Act, only a Judge of the High Court
could be appointed as arbitrator, whereas one Mr. Neeladri Rao,
Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Hyderabad was appointed as an
arbitrator. It is contended that the learned Single Judge ought to have
appreciated that the issues raised in these writ petitions have to be
considered by the Wakf Tribunal. It is also contended that the validity
of the title deeds cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition. In support of
the said submissions, reliance has been placed on the decisions in Kiran
Singh v. Chaman Paswan2 , Sohan Lal v. Union of India3 , State of Mysore
v. Mysore Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd.4 , Thansingh Nathmal v. Supdt. of Taxes5 ,
Mohan Pandey v. Usha Rani Rajgaria (Smt.)6 , State of Rajasthan v.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bhawani Singh7 , Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks8 ,

Allauddin Charities and Zakath Wakf v. Hameed Ali9 , Chief Engineer,
Hydel Project v. Ravinder Nath10 , Bhoruka Textiles Ltd. v. Kashmiri Rice
Industries11 , Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil12 , W.B.
Wakf Board v. Anis Fatma Begum13 , Mir Qamar Hasan Razvi v. A.P.
State Wakf Board14 , D. Suneela v. Government of Andhra Pradesh
(Order dated 23.02.2012 in W.P. No. 33738 of 2011), B. Shanker v.
A.P. State Wakf Board (order dated 25.04.2012 in W.P. No. 11788 of
2012), Pilli Anjaneyulu Yadav v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (order
dated 04.09.2012 in W.A. No. 466 of 2012), Roshina T. v. Abdul Azeez
K.T.15 , Indore Development Authority (LAPSE-5 J.) v. Manoharlal16 ,
Shubhas Jain v. Rajeshwari Shivam17 , Rashid Wali Beg v. Farid Pindari18
and Visweswara Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. The Telangana State
Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd. (Order dated 24.08.2023 in
W.A. No. 697 of 2023).
(iv) SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF of WAKF BOARD:
11. Learned Senior Counsel for the Wakf Board while referring to the
revenue records between the period from 1839 to 1984 - 1985,
submitted that the property in question is a wakf property. It is pointed
out that in the year 1965, an enquiry was conducted by the
Commissioner of Wakfs, Hyderabad, into the nature of the subject land
wherein all the writ petitioners as well as their predecessors-in-title
were parties. A report was thereafter prepared on 07.08.1965 which
was not assailed by anyone including the predecessors of the writ
petitioners. It is further pointed out that the Tahsildar, by an order
dated 04.11.1969, recorded the fact that the predecessors-in-title of
the writ petitioners had accepted that the lands belong to Masjid.
12. It is also contended that Mohd. Miskeen filed petitions under the
Atiyat Enquiries Act on 17.03.1979, 31.03.1979 and 03.03.1980 for
sanction of Aityat Succession Rights. It is submitted that the Revenue
Divisional Officer after perusal of the ryotwari patta certificates, by an
order dated 17.01.1981, held that the same were in the nature of
Darga Hazrat Shah Inayat. It is further submitted that the award
passed by the arbitrator under the provisions of the 1952 Act was set
aside by an order dated 16.07.1999 in A.S. No. 1603 of 1985. It is also
pointed out that the notifications issued under the 1952 Act were
quashed vide order dated 10.07.1987 passed in W.P. No. 4684 of 1987.
13. It is contended that in a proceeding under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the issue whether or not a property is a wakf
property cannot be adjudicated. It is submitted that the disputed
questions of title cannot in any case be decided in a writ petition and
the appropriate remedy for the writ petitioners is to approach the Wakf
Tribunal under Section 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995. It is further submitted
that once the property is wakf property, it is always a wakf property.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. It is argued that the observations made in a proceeding which is

without jurisdiction does not amount to res judicata. Therefore, the
observations made in the order dated 24.10.2005 passed in L.P.A. Nos.
76 and 78 of 2000 by a Division Bench of this Court are of no
assistance to the writ petitioners. It is contended that Section 112 of
the Wakf Act, 1995, is widely worded and the proceeding initiated
under the 1954 Act is saved. It is further contended that if the land is a
wakf land, the question of grant of occupancy rights does not arise. In
support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on the
decisions of the Supreme Court in Chief Inspector of Mines v. Karam
Chand Thapar19 , Sayyed Ali v. A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad20 and T.N.
Wakf Board v. Hathija Ammal21 .
(v) SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF of WRIT PETITIONERS:
15. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the writ
petitioners while inviting the attention of this Court to the relief claimed
in the writ petitions submitted that the writ petitioners had only
assailed the validity of notification dated 27.07.2006 issued under
Section 5(2) of 1995 Act notifying the lands as the wakf property. It is
further submitted that in the writ petitions, no disputed questions of
fact arise for consideration. It is also submitted that a survey was
conducted on 07.08.1965 and the notification impugned in the writ
petitions was issued after an inordinate delay of 41 years for which no
explanation has been offered. It is contended that the aforesaid
notification has been issued solely with a view to interdict the judgment
of this Court. It is contended that the Wakf Tribunal cannot decide the
issue of validity of the notification and the decision in Rashid Wali Beg
(supra) has been subsequently clarified by the Supreme Court in State
of Andhra Pradesh (Now State of Telangana) v. A.P. State Wakf Board22 .
It is urged that under Section 8(1)(b) of the 1952 Act, any person
qualified to be appointed as a High Court Judge can be appointed as an
arbitrator. No factual foundation in the pleadings has been made with
regard to challenge of the award on this ground. It is also argued that
against the award passed by the arbitrator, no appeal was preferred by
the Wakf Board and it has accepted the award passed by the arbitrator.
16. It is argued that a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment
dated 10.11.1988 in W.A. No. 1768 of 1987 held that the Mutawallis
have no locus. It is further argued that only a completed action under
Section 112 of the Wakf Act, 1995, is protected. It is contended that
preparation of survey report is an inchoate action and the same is not
saved under Section 112 of the Wakf Act, 1995, and therefore, does not
enure to the benefit of either the Mutawallis or the Wakf Board. It is
further contended that in previous rounds of litigation, it has already
been concluded that the subject land is not wakf land and liberty was
given by a Division Bench of this Court only with regard to nature of
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
inam and not otherwise.

17. It is argued that the Supreme Court while dismissing the special
leave petition vide order dated 26.10.2007 only granted the liberty to
Mutawalli to urge all the contentions before the Joint Collector before
whom the appeal is stated to be pending. In support of the aforesaid
submissions, reliance has been placed on the order dated 03.10.2023
in W.A. No. 945 of 2023 and the decision of the Supreme Court in State
of Andhra Pradesh (Now State of Telangana) v. A.P. State Wakf Board
(supra). Learned Senior Counsel has also argued that the decisions of
the Supreme Court in Hathija Ammal (supra) and Sayyed Ali (supra)
are distinguishable and do not apply to the facts of instant cases. It is
also contended that void order needs to be challenged before the higher
forum and in case the same is not challenged, it binds the party. He
placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Kerala
v. M.K. Kunhikannan Nambiar Manjeri Manikoth23 .
(vi) SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF of LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:
18. Learned counsel for the legal representatives of respondent No. 5
in W.A. No. 1355 of 2018, W.A. No. 1410 of 2018; the legal
representatives of respondent No. 6 in W.A. No. 1409 of 2018, W.A. No.
1427 of 2018; and the legal representatives of respondent No. 13 in
W.A. No. 1753 of 2018 has submitted that the Wakf Board had placed
reliance on a judgment passed in A.S. No. 1603 of 1985 which was set
aside in L.P.A. Nos. 76 and 78 of 2000, whereas in the instant appeals,
reliance is placed on A.S. No. 1603 of 1985. It is, therefore, submitted
that the Wakf Board cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate.
(vii) SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF of SPECIAL GOVERNMENT
PLEADER:
19. Learned Senior Counsel and Special Government Pleader has
adopted the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the
Wakf Board.
(viii) REJOINDER SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF of WAKF BOARD:
20. Learned Senior Counsel for the Wakf Board by way of rejoinder
submitted that the provisions of Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Wakf Act,
1954, are pari materia to Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Wakf Act, 1995. It
is also pointed out that the judgment in the writ appeal dated
10.11.1988 is without jurisdiction and the same only pertains to the
land measuring Acs.8.13 guntas of survey No. 115. It is also pointed
out that there is no adjudication with regard to the nature of lands in
respect of Survey Nos. 113 to 120. It is also pointed out that the
decision of the learned Single Judge in B. Gowra Reddy v. Government
of Andhra Pradesh24 is distinguishable and does not apply to the facts
of the case.
(ix) RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and

perused the record. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take
note of relevant statutory provisions. The Wakf Act, 1954 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the 1954 Act’) was enacted to provide for better
administration and supervision of wakfs. The 1954 Act was repealed by
the Wakf Act, 1995 which was enacted with an object to provide for
better administration of wakfs and matters connected therewith.
22. Section 4 of the 1954 Act deals with survey, whereas Section 5
provides for publication of list of wakfs. Section 6 deals with disputes
regarding wakfs. The relevant provisions of the 1954 Act and the Wakf
Act, 1995 prior to its amendment by Act No. 27 of 2013 dated
01.11.2013 are extracted below for the facility of reference:—
Wakf Act, 1954 Wakf Act, 1995
1. Section 4 - “4. Preliminary 1. Section 4 - 4. Preliminary
survey of wakfs. (1) The State survey of Wakfs—(1) The State
Government may, by notification Government may, by notification
in the Official Gazette, appoint for in the Official Gazette, appoint for
the State a Survey Commissioner the State a Survey Commissioner
of Wakfs and as many Additional of Wakfs and as many Additional
or Assistant Survey or Assistant Survey
Commissioners of Wakfs as may Commissioners of Wakfs as may
be necessary for the purpose of be necessary for the purpose of
making a survey of wakfs existing making a survey of Wakfs existing
in the State at the date of the in the State at the date of the
commencement of this Act. commencement of this Act.
(2) All Additional and Assistant (2) All Additional and Assistant
Survey Commissioners of Wakfs Survey Commissioners of Wakfs
shall perform their functions shall perform their functions
under this Act under the general under this Act under the general
supervision and control of the supervision and control of the
Survey Commissioner of Wakfs. Survey Commissioner of Wakfs.
(3) The Survey Commissioner (3) The Survey Commissioner
shall, after making such inquiry shall, after making such inquiry
as he may consider necessary, as he may consider necessary,
submit his report at the date of submit his report, in respect of
the commencement of this Act in Wakfs existing at the date of the
the State or any part thereof, to commencement of this Act in the
the State Government containing State or any part thereof, to the
the following particulars, namely, State Government containing the
(a) the number of wakfs in the following particulars, namely:—
State, or as the case may be, any (a) the number of Wakfs in the
part thereof, showing the Shia State showing the Shia Wakfs and
wakfs and Sunni wakfs Sunni Wakfs separately;
separately; (b) the nature and objects of each
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) the nature and objects of each Wakf;

wakf; (c) the gross income of the
(c) the gross income of the property comprised in each Wakf;
property comprised in each wakf; (d) the amount of land revenue,
(d) the amount of land revenue, cesses, rates and taxes payable in
cesses, rates and taxes payable in respect of each Wakf;
respect of such property; (e) the expenses incurred in the
(e) the expenses incurred in the realisation of the income and the
realisation of the income and the pay or other remuneration of the
pay or other remuneration of the mutawalli of each Wakf; and
mutawalli of each wakf; and (f) such other particulars relating
(f) such other particulars relating to each Wakf as may be
to each wakf as may be prescribed.
prescribed. (4) The Survey Commissioner
(4) The Survey Commissioner shall, while making any inquiry,
shall, while making any inquiry, have the same powers as are
have the same powers as are vested in a civil Court under the
vested in a civil court under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (5 of
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (5 of 1908) in respect of the following
1908), in respect of the following matters, namely:—
matters, namely:— (a) summoning and examining
(a) summoning and examining any witness;
any witness; (b) requiring the discovery and
(b) requiring the discovery and production of any document;
production of any document; (c) requisitioning any public
(c) requisitioning any public record from any court or office;
record from any court or office; (d) issuing, commissions for the
(d) issuing commissions for the examination of any witness or
examination of any witness or accounts;
accounts; (e) making any local inspection or
(e) making any local inspection or local investigation;
local investigation; (f) such other matters as may be
(f) any other matter which may prescribed.
be prescribed. (5) If, during any such inquiry,
(5) If, during any such inquiry, any dispute arises as to whether a
any dispute arises as to whether a particular Wakf is a Shia Wakf or
particular wakf is a Shia wakf or Sunni Wakf and there are clear
Sunni wakf and there are clear indications in the deed of Wakf as
indications in the deed of wakf as to its nature, the dispute shall be
to its nature, the dispute shall be decided on the basis of such
decided on the basis of such deed.
deed. (6) The State Government may,
by notification in the Official
Gazette, direct the Survey
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commissioner to make a second

or subsequent survey of Wakf
properties in the State and the
provisions of subsections (2), (3),
(4) and (5) shall apply to such
survey as they apply to a survey
directed under subsection (1):
Provided that no such second or
subsequent survey shall be made
until the expiry of a period of
twenty years from the date on
which the report in relation to the
immediately previous survey was
submitted under sub-section (3):
2. Section 5 — Publication of list 2. Section 5 — 5. Publication of
of wakfs.— (1) On receipt of a list of Wakfs : .—
report under sub-section (3) of (1) On receipt of a report under
section 4, the State Government sub-section (3) of section 4, the
shall forward a copy of the same State Government shall forward a
to the Board. copy of the same to the Board.
(2) The Board shall examine the (2) The Board shall examine the
report forwarded to it under report forwarded to it under
subsection (1) and publish in the subsection (1) and publish in the
Official Gazette a list of wakfs Official Gazette a list of Sunni
existing in the State, or as the Wakfs or Shia Wakfs, in the State,
case may be, the part of the State whether in existence at the
-------------- commencement of this Act or
-------------- 1. Subs. by Act 38 coming into existence thereafter,
of 1969, s. 4, for “in the to which the report released, and
State” (with retrospective effect). containing such other particulars
2. Subs. By s. 5, ibid., for as may be prescribed.
“existing in the State” (with
retrospective effect). 108 to
which the report relates, and
containing such particulars as
may be prescribed.
3. Section 6 — 6. Disputes 3. Section 6 — 6. Disputes
regarding wakfs.— (1) If any regarding Wakfs.—(1) If any
question arises whether a question arises whether a
particular property specified as particular property specified as
wakf property in a list of wakfs Wakf property in the list of Wakfs
published under subsection (2) of is Wakf property or not or
section 5 is wakf property or not whether a Wakf specified in such
or whether a wakf specified in list is a Shia Wakf or Sunni Wakf,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni the Board or the Mutawalli of the
wakf, the Board or the mutawalli Wakf or any person interested
of the wakf or any person therein may institute a suit in a
interested therein may institute a Tribunal for the decision of the
suit in a civil court of competent question and the decision of the
jurisdiction for the decision of the Tribunal in respect of such matter
question and the decision of the shall be final:
civil court in respect of such Provided that no such suit shall
matter shall be final : Provided be entertained by the Tribunal
that no such suit shall be after the expiry of one year from
entertained by the civil court after the date of the publication of the
the expiry of one year from the list of Wakfs:
date of the publication of the list Explanation : For the purposes of
of wakfs under sub-section (2) of this Section and Section 7, the
Section 5 : Provided further that expression “any person interested
in the case of the list of wakfs therein”, shall, in relation to any
relating to any part of the State property specified as Wakf
and published or purporting to property in the list of Wakfs
have been published before the published after the
commencement of the Wakf commencement of the Act, shall
(Amendment) Act, 1969, (38 of include also every person who,
1969.) Such suit may be though not interested in the Wakf
entertained by the civil court concerned, is interested in such
within the period of one year from property and to whom a
such commencement. reasonable opportunity had been
(2) Notwithstanding anything afforded to represent his case by
contained in subsection (1), no notice served on him in that
proceeding under this Act in behalf during the course of the
respect of any wakf shall be relevant enquiry under Section 4.
stayed by reason only of the (2) Notwithstanding anything
pendency of any such suit or of contained in sub-section (1), no
any appeal or other proceeding proceeding under this Act in
arising out of such suit. respect of any Wakf shall be
(3) The Survey Commissioner stayed by reason only of the
shall not be made a party to any pendency of any such suit or of
suit under sub-section (1) and no any appeal or other proceeding
suit, prosecution or other legal arising out of such suit.
proceeding shall lie against him in (3) The Survey Commissioner
respect of anything which is in shall not be made a party to any
good faith done or intended to be suit under sub-section (1) and no
done in pursuance of this Act or suit, prosecution or other legal
any rules made thereunder. proceeding shall lie against him in
(4) The list of wakfs published respect of anything which is in
under subsection (2) of Section 5 good faith done or intended to be
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
shall, unless it is modified in done in pursuance of this Act or

pursuance of a decision of the any rules made thereunder.
civil court under sub-section (1), (4) The list of Wakfs shall, unless
be final and conclusive. it is modified in pursuance of a
decision of the Tribunal under sub
-section (1), be final and
conclusive.
(5) On and from the
commencement of this Act in a
State, no suit or other legal
proceeding shall be instituted or
commenced in a court in that
State in relation to any question
referred to in sub-section (1).
23. The Supreme Court in Madanuri Sri. Rama Chandra Murthy v.
Syed Jalal25 has considered Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the 1954 Act as well
as the 1995 Act and has held that Sections 4 to 6 contained in both the
Acts are almost pari materia with each other. Paras 12, 13 and 16 are
extracted below for the facility of reference:
12. Section 4 of the 1954 Act, empowered the State Government
to appoint a State Commissioner, and as many Additional and
Assistant Survey Commissioners of Wakf as may be necessary, by a
notification in the Official Gazette for the purpose of making survey
of wakf properties existing within the State. The Survey
Commissioner after making a survey of wakf properties would submit
his report to the State Government containing various particulars as
mentioned in sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 4 of the Act.
Section 5 of the 1954 Act mandated that on receipt of such report
from the Survey Commissioner made under sub-section (3) of
Section 4, the State Government should forward a copy of the same
to the Wakf Board. The Wakf Board would examine the report
forwarded to it and publish in Official Gazette, the list of wakfs in the
State. For resolving the disputes regarding wakfs, Section 6 of the
1954 Act, provided jurisdictional civil court as a forum and decision
of civil court in respect of such matters should be final. It was also
clarified that no such suit should be entertained by the civil court,
after the expiry of one year from the date of publication of the list of
wakfs as per sub-section (2) of Section 5. Subsection (4) of Section
6 stated that the list of wakfs published under sub-section (2) of
Section 5 shall be final and conclusive unless such list is modified on
the direction of the civil court.
13. The provisions found in Sections 5 and 6 of the Wakf Act,
1995 and the 1954 Act are almost akin to each other. However, the
change brought in by Parliament under the 1995 Act is that, in the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
case of dispute regarding wakfs, the aggrieved party needs to

approach the Wakf Tribunal constituted under Section 83 of the Wakf
Act, 1995 and consequently, the jurisdiction of the civil court is
taken away. Except the aforesaid change, no other substantial
modification is found in those provisions. Section 7 of the 1995 Act
empowers the Tribunal to determine the disputes, regarding
auqaf/wakfs, the particulars of which are specified therein.
16. Thus, it is amply clear that the conducting of survey by the
Survey Commissioner and preparing a report and forwarding the
same to the State or the Wakf Board precedes the final act of
notifying such list in the Official Gazette by the State under the 1995
Act (it was by the Board under the 1954 Act). As mentioned supra,
the list would be prepared by the Survey Commissioner after making
due enquiry and after valid survey as well as after due application of
mind. The enquiry contemplated under sub-section (3) of Section 4
is not merely an informal enquiry but a formal enquiry to find out at
the grass root level, as to whether the property is a wakf property or
not. Thereafter the Wakf Board will once again examine the list sent
to it with due application of its mind and only thereafter the same
will be sent to the Government for notifying the same in the Gazette.
Since the list is prepared and published in the Official Gazette by
following the aforementioned procedure, there is no scope for the
plaintiff to get the matter reopened by generating some sort of
doubt about Survey Commissioner's Report. Since the Surveyor's
Report was required to be considered by the State Government as
well as the Wakf Board (as the case may be), prior to finalisation of
the list of properties to be published in the Official Gazette, it was
not open for the High Court to conclude that the Surveyor's Report
will have to be reconsidered. On the contrary, the Surveyor's Report
merges with the gazette notification published under Section 5 of
the Wakf Act.
(x) ISSUES:
24. After noticing the provisions of the 1954 Act and the 1995 Act,
we may advert to the issues which arise for consideration in these
appeals. The following issues arise for consideration in these appeals:
(1) Whether the enquiry report dated 07.08.1965 prepared under
Section 4(4) of the 1954 Act is saved under Section 112 of the
Wakf Act, 1995?
(2) Whether on the basis of the enquiry report dated 07.08.1965, a
notification after a period of 41 years declaring the subject land to
be wakf property can be issued under Section 5(2) of the Wakf
Act, 1995?
(3) Whether issue with regard to validity of the notification dated
27.07.2006 issued by the Wakf Board can be examined by the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wakf Tribunal under the then Section 6 of the Wakf Act, 1995 in
vogue at the relevant time?
(4) Whether issue with regard to validity of the notification dated
27.07.2006 can be examined in a writ petition under Article 226
of the Constitution of India? and
(5) Whether the common Judgment dated 24.10.2005 passed by a
Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. Nos. 76 and 78 of 2000
operates as res judicata in respect of land measuring Acs.8.13
guntas bearing Survey Nos. 113 to 120 of Karmanghat Village,
Hayathnagar Taluk, Ranga Reddy District against the legal
representatives of late Mohd. Miskeen, who was the erstwhile
inamdar and the Wakf Board?
(xi) ANALYSIS:
25. We shall now proceed to deal with the issues ad seriatim.
Issue (1) : Whether the enquiry report dated 07.08.1965
prepared under Section 4(4) of the 1954 Act is saved under
Section 112 of the Wakf Act, 1995?
26. The making of survey under Section 4 of the Act is not a mere
administrative act but it is to be informed by a quasi-judicial inquiry.
The surveyor has the power to find out whether a particular is a wakf
and Commissioner has to determine the aspects which have been
mentioned in Section 4 of the Act (see Maharashtra State Board of
Wakfs v. Shaikh Yusuf Bhai Chawla26 ). The effect of repeal of a statute
is to destroy all inchoate rights and all causes of action which may have
arisen under the provisions of repealed statute. When repeal is followed
by a fresh legislation on the same subject, the Court undoubtedly has
to look into the provisions of the new Act, but only for the purpose of
determining whether they indicate a different intention. The line of
enquiry would be, not whether the new Act expressly keeps alive old
rights and liabilities, but whether it manifests an intention to destroy
them (see State of Punjab v. Mohar Singh27 ). The aforesaid view was
reiterated with approval in Gammon India Limited v. Special Chief
Secretary28 , and it was held that the issue with regard to the
continuation of pending proceedings under a repealed statute depends
either under the savings contained in the Repeal Act or under Section 6
of the General Clauses Act. It was further held that question whether a
right was acquired or a liability incurred under a statute before its
repeal in each case depends on the construction of a statute and the
facts of a particular case. It was also held that when there is a repeal of
an enactment and simultaneous re-enactment, the re-enactment has to
be considered as reaffirmation of the old law and the provisions of the
repealed Act which are thus re-enacted continue in force
uninterruptedly unless the re-enacted enactment manifests an
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
intention incompatible with or contrary to the provisions of the repealed

Act. The aforesaid view was again reiterated with approval in State of
Haryana v. Hindustan Construction Company Limited29 .
27. Section 112 of the 1995 Act, which deals with repeal and
savings, is extracted below for the facility of reference:
112. Repeal and savings:— (1) The Wakf Act, 1954 (29 of
1954) and the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 (69 of 1984) are
hereby repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action
taken under the said Acts shall be deemed to have been done or
taken under the corresponding provisions of this Act.
(3) If, immediately before the commencement of this Act, in any
State, there is in force in that State, any law which corresponds to
this Act that corresponding law shall stand repealed:
Provided that such repeal shall not affect the previous
operation of that corresponding law, and subject thereto, anything
done or any action taken in the exercise of any power conferred by
or under the corresponding law shall be deemed to have been
done or taken in the exercise of the powers conferred by or under
this Act as if this Act was in force on the day on which such things
were done or action was taken.
28. In the instant case, the repeal of an enactment, namely 1954
Act is accompanied with simultaneous re-enactment namely the 1995
Act. In Madanuri Sri. Rama Chandra Murthy (supra), the Supreme
Court has held that the provisions of Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the 1954
Act as well as the 1995 Act are substantially similar. Therefore, the
legislative intention can safely be inferred as re-affirmation of the old
law.
29. It is pertinent to note that scope and effect of Section 112(2) of
the 1995 Act was considered by the Supreme Court in T. Kaliamurthi v.
Five Gori Thaikkal Wakf30 and it was held that Section 112 of the Act is
in conformity with Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, which also
provides that a repeal shall not affect any right, privilege, obligation or
liability acquired or incurred under the repealed enactment unless a
contrary intention appears. Thus, under Section 6 of the General
Clauses Act and Section 112 of the Wakf Act, prior operation of the
repealed enactment or the legal proceedings or remedies instituted,
continued or enforced are saved.
30. On perusal of Section 112(2) of the 1995 Act, the legislative
intent to save anything done or any action taken under the 1954 Act is
manifest. Therefore, anything done or any action taken under the 1954
Act is saved and shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the
corresponding provisions of the 1995 Act. The re-enacted enactment
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i.e., the 1995 Act does not contain any intention incompatible with or
contrary to the provisions of the Repealed Act. Therefore, the survey
conducted under Section 4 of the 1954 Act is saved under Section 112
(2) of the 1995 Act. Accordingly, the first issue is answered in the
affirmative.
Issue (2) : Whether on the basis of the enquiry report dated
07.08.1965, a notification after a period of 41 years declaring the
subject land to be wakf property can be issued under Section 5
of the Wakf Act, 1995?
31. Section 4(3) of the 1954 Act does not provide for a time limit
within which the Commissioner after conducting the enquiry, has to
submit the report to the State Government. It is equally true that
Section 5 of the Act does not provide for time limit for issue of
publication of list of wakfs. However, the Commissioner of Wakfs and
the Wakf Board exercise the statutory function while preparing the
enquiry report and publishing the same as list of wakfs under Sections
4 and 5 of the Act respectively. A mere survey carried under Section 4
of the 1954 Act does not extinguish the rights in a property. It is only
on publication of notification under Section 5(2) of the Act, the rights of
a person in a property are extinguished. Therefore, the statutory powers
have to be exercised within a reasonable period as rights in a property
may accrue after survey which may get extinguished on publication of
the survey.
32. Even otherwise, it is trite law that where a statute does not
provide for time limit for doing an act, such an act has to be done
within a reasonable time, and what would be reasonable time has to be
decided in the facts and circumstances of the act (See : Meher Rusi
Dalal v. Union of India31 , P.K. Sreekantan v. P. Sreekumaran Nair32 and
K.B. Nagur v. Union of India33 ).
33. The Supreme Court in the State of Andhra Pradesh now the
State of Telangana v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board34 has disapproved
the action of issuing an errata notification after a lapse of 17 years from
the date of first notification.
34. In the instant case, the enquiry report was prepared on
07.08.1965 whereas the notification under Section 5 of the Act dated
27.07.2006 has been issued after a period of 41 years. The notification
dated 27.07.2006 extinguishes the rights of the persons in the subject
property. The statutory powers have to be exercised within a reasonable
time. In the instant case, the notification dated 27.07.2006 which has
the effect of extinguishing the rights of individuals in the property has
been issued after an inordinate delay of 41 years for which no
explanation has been offered. The exercise of statutory powers after a
period of 41 years without any explanation for the same cannot be said
to be exercise of statutory powers within a reasonable time and
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
therefore, the same is vitiated in law. Accordingly, the second issue is

answered.
Issue (3) : Whether issue with regard to validity of the
notification dated 27.07.2006 issued by the Wakf Board can be
examined by the Wakf Tribunal under the then Section 6 of the
Wakf Act, 1995 in vogue at the relevant time?
35. Before dealing with the aforesaid issue, it is apposite to take
note of the statutory provision, namely Section 6 of the Wakf Act, 1995
as it stood at the time of issuance of notification dated 27.07.2006 prior
to its Amendment Act No. 27 of 2013 dated 01.11.2013.
6. Disputes regarding Wakfs:— (1) If any question arises
whether a particular property specified as Wakf property in the list of
Wakfs is wakf property or not or whether a Wakq specified in such
list is a Shia Wakf or Sunni Wakf, the Board or the Mutawalli of the
Wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a
Tribunal for the decision of the question and the decision of the
Tribunal in respect of such matter shall be final;
Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the Tribunal
after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the
list of Wakfs:
Explanation:— For the purposes of this section and section 7,
the expression “any person interested therein”, shall, in relation to
any property specified as wakf property in the list of wakfs
published after the commencement of this Act, shall include also
every person who, though not interested in the wakf concerned, is
interested in such property and to whom a reasonable opportunity
had been afforded to represent his case by notice served on him
in that behalf during the course of the relevant inquiry under
Section 4.
(2) Not withstanding anything contained in subsection (1), no
proceeding under this Act in respect of any wakf shall be stayed by
reason only of the pendency of any such suit or of any appeal or
other proceeding arising out of such suit.
(3) The Survey Commissioner shall not be made a party to any
suit under sub-section (1) and no suit, prosecution or other legal
proceeding shall lie against him in respect of anything which is in
good faith done or intended to be done in pursuance of this Act or
any rules made thereunder.
(4) The list of Wakfs shall, unless it is modified in pursuance of a
decision or the Tribunal under subsection (1), be final and
conclusive.
(5) On and from the commencement of this Act in a State, no suit
or other legal proceeding shall be instituted or commenced in a court
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
in that State in relation to any question referred to in sub-section

(1).
36. Thus, it is evident that dispute whether or not property is a wakf
property in the list of wakfs and whether the same belongs to Shia or
Sunni wakf, the Board or the Mutawalli of the wakf or any person
interested therein may institute a suit in a Tribunal for adjudication of
the aforesaid question. Section 6 has to be read with Section 3(k) of
the Act which defines the expression ‘person interested in a wakf’ and
reads as under:
3(k) “person interested in a wakf” means any person who is
entitled to receive any pecuniary or other benefit from the wakf and
includes—
(i) any person who has a right to workship or to perform any
religious rite in a mosque, idgah, imambara, dargah, khanqah,
peerkhana and karbala, maqbara, graveyard or any other
religious institution connected with the wakf or to participate in
any religious or charitable institution under the wakf;
(ii) the wakif and any descendant of the wakf and the Mutawalli;
37. Thus, if provisions of Section 6 and 3(k) of the Wakf Act, 1995,
prior to its Amendment, are read in conjunction, it is evident that the
petitioners are not the persons interested in a wakf. It is pertinent to
mention that at the relevant point of time when the notification was
issued on 27.07.2006, the petitioners could not have availed of the
remedy under Section 6. However, subsequently by Amendment Act
No. 27 of 2013 dated 01.11.2013, the words ‘any person interested’
had been substituted by ‘any person aggrieved’. But, at the relevant
time, the remedy of filing a suit before the Wakf Tribunal was not
available to the petitioners. Accordingly, the third issue is answered in
the negative.
Issue (4) : Whether issue with regard to validity of the
notification dated 27.07.2006 can be examined in a writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?
38. A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Babubhai
Muljibhai Patel v. Nandlal Khodidas Barot35 held that the High Court is
not deprived of its jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 226
merely because in considering the petitioner's right of relief, questions
of fact may fall to be determined. In a petition under Article 226, the
High Court has jurisdiction to try issues both of fact and law. In
paragraph 9, it was held as under:
9. On behalf of the appellant his learned counsel, Mr. Amin, has at
the outset contended that as the dispute between the parties in this
case involved questions of fact, the High Court should not have
entertained the writ petition filed by Respondent 1 but should have
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
referred the parties to a separate suit. This contention, in our

opinion, is not well founded. No plea was admittedly taken in the
return filed on behalf of the appellant in reply to the writ petition
that Respondent 1 should be directed to seek his remedy by means
of a suit because of disputed questions of fact. In the absence of
such a plea, the appellant, in our opinion, cannot be heard to say
that the High Court should have relegated Respondent 1 to the
remedy of a suit. Apart from that we find that the term of the
appellant as the President of the municipality would have expired in
1975. The trial of a suit, in the very nature of things, would have
taken considerable time. Appeal and second appeal would have also
been filed by the unsuccessful party in the case. Had Respondent 1
been directed to seek his remedy by way of a suit, the relief secured
by Respondent 1 even if he had succeeded in the suit would have
been wholly illusory because by the time Respondent 1 would
succeed in the litigation, the term of the office of the President would
have either already expired or be about to expire. The appellant in
that event would have continued as the President of the municipality
even though he had ceased to enjoy the confidence of the requisite
number of councillors and they had passed a motion of no confidence
against him. The entire concept of a democratic institution would
thus have been set at naught. We agree with the observations of the
High Court that the purpose underlying the petition would have been
completely defeated in case Respondent 1 had been relegated to the
ordinary remedy of a suit and that such remedy was neither
adequate nor efficacious.
39. The power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India can be exercised not only for enforcement of fundamental rights
but for any other purpose as well. In the State of Andhra Pradesh now
the State of Telangana v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board (supra), the High
Court had relegated the parties to an alternative remedy of filing a
regular suit before the Wakf Tribunal. The Supreme Court in paragraph
116 held that the High Court erred in law to relegate the parties to the
statutory remedy. Paragraph 116 reads as under:
116. We find that the High Court has examined the merits of the
contention raised including the documents filed so as not to accept
the contentions of the State. Though the High Court has expressed
the same to be prima facie view, but in fact, nothing was left to
suggest that it was not a final order as far as the State is concerned
with the order of the dismissal of its writ petition. Even otherwise,
we find that the questions raised before this Court are the
interpretation of the statues, the Farmans issued by Sovereign from
time to time and the interpretation of the document to the facts of
the present case. It is not a case where any oral evidence would be
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
necessary or is available now. In fact, that was not even the

suggestion before this Court. Since the question was in respect of
interpretation of the statutes and the documents primarily issued by
the Sovereign, the matter needs to be examined on merits as
detailed arguments have been addressed by learned counsel for the
parties. Thus, we find that the High Court erred in law, in the facts
and circumstances of the case, to relegate the parties to the
statutory remedy.
40. An enquiry report as well as the notification were issued in
exercise of statutory powers under Sections 4 and 5 of the Wakf Act. In
the instant case, no disputed question of fact arises for consideration.
Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the
view that issue with regard to the validity of the notification dated
27.07.2006 which does not depend on determination of any disputed
questions of fact could have been examined by the learned Single
Judge in writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the fourth issue is answered.
Issue (5) : Whether the common Judgment dated 24.10.2005
passed by a Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. Nos. 76 and 78
of 2000 operates as res judicata in respect of land measuring
Acs.8.13 guntas bearing Survey Nos. 113 to 120 of Karmanghat
Village, Hayathnagar Taluk, Ranga Reddy District against the
legal representatives of late Mohd. Miskeen, who was the
erstwhile inamdar and the Wakf Board?
41. The Award dated 25.03.1985 was passed under Section 8 of the
1952 Act. The validity of the aforesaid Award was challenged in A.S.
No. 1603 of 1985. A learned Single Judge by an order dated
06.07.1999 set aside the Award passed under the 1952 Act and held
that land measuring Acs.8.13 guntas bearing Survey Nos. 113 to 120 of
Karmanghat Village, Hayathnagar Taluk, Ranga Reddy District is a wakf
property. The aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge was
assailed by the legal representatives of inamdar in L.P.A. Nos. 76 and
78 of 2000. It is pertinent to note that the Wakf Board was also a party
in the aforesaid appeals. A Division Bench of this Court by an order
dated 24.10.2005 inter alia held that the land measuring Acs.8.13
guntas bearing Survey Nos. 113 to 120 of Karmanghat Village,
Hayathnagar Taluk, Ranga Reddy is not a service inam land and set
aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The relevant
extract of the aforesaid order reads as under:
It is thus clear that the entries in the official gazette describing
the property as wakf, if allowed to become final, alone can be treated
as conclusive and not the preliminary survey report submitted by the
Commissioner of the wakfs. It is therefore not possible to hold the
property to be a wakf by placing exclusive reliance upon Ex.A-4. The
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
submission made in this regard is accordingly rejected.

The learned Single Judge while reversing the award passed by the
learned Arbitrator altogether ignored Ex.A-41 muntakhab which was
relied upon by the learned Arbitrator wherein it is mentioned that
the land in question is inam land. That a fair reading of the recitals
of muntakab does not suggest it to be a service inam land.
42. Against the aforesaid order of the Division Bench, Special Leave
Petitions, namely S.L.P. (C) CC Nos. 10058 - 10062 of 2007 were filed
by legal representatives of Mohd. Miskeen, inamdar. Thus, the Wakf
Board did not file any Special Leave Petition against the order dated
24.10.2005 passed by a Division Bench of this Court. Thus, the Wakf
Board accepted the finding recorded by the Division Bench of this Court
that part of the subject land i.e., land measuring Acs.8.13 guntas
bearing Survey Nos. 113 to 120 of Karmanghat Village, Hayathnagar
Taluk, Ranga Reddy is not service inam land. Even otherwise, the
aforesaid order passed by the Division Bench of this Court attained
finality as Special Leave Petitions preferred by the legal representatives
of Mohd. Miskeen, inamdar namely S.L.P. (C) CC Nos. 10058 - 10062 of
2007 were dismissed by order dated 26.10.2007 by the Supreme
Court. The aforesaid order reads as under:
Inordinate delay in filing these petitions has not been explained
property. Application of condonation of delay is rejected.
Consequently, the Special Leave Petitions are dismissed. It is also
open to the petitioners to urge all the rights and contentions before
the Joint Collector before whom the appeal is stated to be pending.
43. Therefore, the common order dated 24.10.2005 passed by a
Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. Nos. 76 and 78 of 2000 operates
as res judicata in respect of land measuring Acs.8.13 guntas bearing
Survey Nos. 113 to 120 of Karmanghat Village, Hayathnagar Taluk,
Ranga Reddy. Accordingly, the fifth issue is answered in affirmative.
44. The issue whether or not the Award dated 25.03.1985 passed by
the Arbitrator under Section 8 of the 1952 Act is a nullity or not need
not be examined as the aforesaid Award was set aside by the learned
Single Judge by an order dated 06.07.1999 passed in A.S. No. 1603 of
1985. Even otherwise, it is pertinent to mention that the respondents
have not laid any factual foundation with regard to the Award being
nullity in the pleadings. The contention that since Mr. V. Neeladri Rao
was Presiding Officer of the Labour Court and was incompetent to pass
the Award is concerned, is misconceived. There is no material on record
to show that Mr. V. Neeladri Rao was not qualified for appointment as
Judge of this Court. In fact, subsequent to passing of the Award, he
was indeed elevated as Judge of the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh High
Court. The aforesaid contention, therefore, does not deserve
acceptance. Similarly, the contention that the order dated 24.10.2005
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
passed by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. Nos. 76 and 78 of

2000 is without jurisdiction is misconceived and has been made
without any foundation.
45. The scope of an intra-court appeal is well defined. This Court in
appeal against an order of learned Single Judge does not act as Court of
regular appeal.
46. For the reasons assigned by us in the order, we agree with the
conclusions of the learned Single Judge. We, therefore, do not find any
merit in these appeals.
(xii) CONCLUSION:
47. The writ appeals fail and are hereby dismissed.
48. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
———
1 AIR 1964 SC 685
2 AIR 1954 SC 340
3
1957 SCC OnLine SC 39 : 1957 SCR 738 : AIR 1957 SC 529
4 AIR 1958 SC 1002
5 1964 SCC OnLine SC 13 : (1964) 6 SCR 654 : AIR 1964 SC 1419
6 (1992) 4 SCC 61 : AIR 1993 SC 1225
7 1993 Supp (1) SCC 306 : AIR 1992 SC 1018
8
(1998) 8 SCC 1
9 2001 SCC OnLine AP 952 : (2002) 1 ALD 67 : (2002) 2 ALT 534 (DB)
10
(2008) 2 SCC 350
11 (2009) 7 SCC 521
12 (2010) 8 SCC 329
13 (2010) 14 SCC 588
14 2011 SCC OnLine AP 323 : (2011) 5 ALD 407
15 (2019) 2 SCC 329
16 (2020) 8 SCC 129
17 2021 SCC OnLine SC 562
18 (2022) 4 SCC 414
19 AIR 1961 SC 838
20
(1998) 2 SCC 642
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
21 (2001) 8 SCC 528
23 (1996) 1 SCC 435
24
2002 SCC OnLine AP 16 : AIR 2002 AP 313
25
(2017) 13 SCC 174
27 (1955) 1 SCR 893 : AIR 1955 SC 84
28 (2006) 3 SCC 354
29
(2017) 9 SCC 463
30
(2008) 9 SCC 306
31 (2004) 7 SCC 362
32 (2006) 13 SCC 574
33 (2012) 4 SCC 483
34
2022 SCC OnLine SC 159
35 (1974) 2 SCC 706
Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/
regulation/ circular/ notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be
liable in any manner by reason of any mistake or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice
rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All
disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The authenticity of
this text must be verified from the original source.

J_2023_SCC_OnLine_TS_3820_kanirudhreddy1_gmailcom_20240330_050326_1_22 (1)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

J_2023_SCC_OnLine_TS_3820_kanirudhreddy1_gmailcom_20240330_050326_1_22 (1)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Page 1 Saturday, March 30, 2024

2023 SCC OnLine TS 3820

In the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad

Munawar Sultana and Others … Appellants;

Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,

participate in the said proceedings and the proceedings shall be

Bhawani Singh7 , Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks8 ,

14. It is argued that the observations made in a proceeding which is

inam and not otherwise.

21. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and

(b) the nature and objects of each Wakf;

Commissioner to make a second

shall, unless it is modified in done in pursuance of this Act or

case of dispute regarding wakfs, the aggrieved party needs to

intention incompatible with or contrary to the provisions of the repealed

therefore, the same is vitiated in law. Accordingly, the second issue is

in that State in relation to any question referred to in sub-section

referred the parties to a separate suit. This contention, in our

necessary or is available now. In fact, that was not even the

submission made in this regard is accordingly rejected.

passed by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. Nos. 76 and 78 of

2 AIR 1954 SC 340

4 AIR 1958 SC 1002

5 1964 SCC OnLine SC 13 : (1964) 6 SCR 654 : AIR 1964 SC 1419

6 (1992) 4 SCC 61 : AIR 1993 SC 1225

7 1993 Supp (1) SCC 306 : AIR 1992 SC 1018

11 (2009) 7 SCC 521

12 (2010) 8 SCC 329

13 (2010) 14 SCC 588

14 2011 SCC OnLine AP 323 : (2011) 5 ALD 407

15 (2019) 2 SCC 329

16 (2020) 8 SCC 129

17 2021 SCC OnLine SC 562

18 (2022) 4 SCC 414

19 AIR 1961 SC 838

21 (2001) 8 SCC 528

22 2022 SCC OnLine SC 159

23 (1996) 1 SCC 435

26 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1653

27 (1955) 1 SCR 893 : AIR 1955 SC 84

28 (2006) 3 SCC 354

31 (2004) 7 SCC 362

32 (2006) 13 SCC 574

33 (2012) 4 SCC 483

35 (1974) 2 SCC 706

You might also like