Telangana High Court
M/S Clean City Estates Pvt. Ltd., And Ano vs Prl. Secy., M.W. Dept. And 2 Ors on 5 May, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2022
in/and
WRIT PETITION No.6898 OF 2015
Dated: 05.05.2026
WRIT PETITION No.6898 OF 2015
Between:
M/s. Clean City Estates Pvt. Ltd. and another
...Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Minority Welfare Department,
Secretariat, Hyderabad and 2 others.
...Respondents
COMMON ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring
the Gazette Notification published by the Wakf Board in A.P.Gazette
No.6A dated 09.02.1989, at Sl. No.3228, with respect to the land
admeasuring Ac. 0-22.04 Guntas and 801 Sq.Yards in Sy.Nos.166 and
166 Paiki, situated at Ibrahimbagh Village, Golconda Mandal,
Hyderabad District, and all other consequential proceedings arising
TMD,J
WP_6898_2015
2
therefrom, as illegal, arbitrary, void, and violative of the principles of
natural justice and the provisions of the A.P.Wakf Act, 1954, and
consequently to set aside the same and to pass such other order or orders.
2.1 Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition are that
the petitioners are engaged in the business of Real Estate and
Infrastructure and petitioner No.1-company is represented by petitioner
No.2. It is stated that petitioner No.1-company purchased agricultural
land admeasuring Ac.0-22.04 guntas or 2668 square yards, out of
Ac.0.35 guntas in Sy.No.166, situated at Ibrahimbagh Village, Golconda
Mandal, Hyderabad District, vide registered Sale Deed bearing
Document No.2107 of 2008, dated 20.02.2008, from one
Mrs.P.Shakuntala and Mr. P. Manik Rao, who are the legal heirs of late
Babu Seth, along with Mr. Abdul Saleem Khan, Mr. Abdul Malik Khan,
Mr. Mohd. Ziauddin, Mr. Shaik Azher Parvez, Mr. Abdul Khaleel Khan,
Mr. Abdul Qayyum Khan, Mohammad Ghulam Haqqanni and
Mohammad Ghulam Subhani, as consenting parties, for valid
consideration. It is stated that thereafter, petitioner No.1 has been in
continuous possession and enjoyment of the said property.
2.2 Petitioner No.2 claims to have purchased agricultural land
admeasuring 801 square yards in Sy.Nos.166 and 166 Paiki, out of an
TMD,J
WP_6898_2015
3
extent of Ac.0-12.6 guntas, situated at Ibrahimbagh Village, Golconda
Mandal, Hyderabad District, vide a registered Sale Deed bearing
Document No.4564 of 2012 dated 15.11.2012, from Mrs. P. Shakuntala
and others, who are the legal heirs of late Babu Seth, for valid
consideration and has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of
the said property ever since.
2.3 The brief history of the title of the subject property is explained
thus:
(i) One Mr. Syed Kaleem Pasha is the original owner and
possessor of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.0.35 guntas in
Sy.Nos.166 and 166 Paiki, with an assessment of 20.88 double
crop wet land under a Tank, situated at Ibrahimbagh Village
Urban Taluk, Hyderabad District. He transferred the said property
in favour of one Mr. P. Babu Seth S/o. P.Rangaiah vide Registered
Sale Deed bearing No.378 of 1971 dated 24.02.1971, pursuant to
which the said P.Babu Seth became the absolute owner of the
subject land.
(ii) It is further submitted that earlier Mr. Manik Rao, the legal
heir of Mr.P.Babu Seth, made a representation to the then Mandal
Revenue Officer, Golconda Mandal, stating that some third parties
TMD,J
WP_6898_2015
4were trying to change the ownership of the land admeasuring
Ac.0.35 guntas in Sy.Nos.166 and 166 Paiki, of Ibrahimbagh
Village and in response thereto, the then Mandal Revenue Officer,
Golconda Mandal, addressed a letter bearing No.D/366/2005,
dated 29.04.2005, to respondent No.2, stating that Mr. P. Manik
Rao, S/o.Late P. Babu Rao, had represented that his father had
purchased the said land in the year 1971 from Syed Kaleem Pasha
S/o. Syed Rasool, and had been in continuous possession and
enjoyment thereof since then, and requested to take appropriate
action.
(iii) It is also stated that, in the Revenue Records, i.e., Pahani of
Ibrahimbagh Village, the name of Syed Kaleem Pasha was
reflected in the pattadar column while the name of Mr. P. Babu
Seth was shown in the possession column in respect of Sy.No.166
for the period from 1955-58 to 1980-81 and vide letter dated
29.04.2005, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Golconda Mandal,
requested respondent No.2 to take appropriate action against the
third parties for trying to change the ownership of the land and to
do justice to the original owners, but respondent No.2 failed to
take any suitable action in the matter.
TMD,J
WP_6898_2015
5
(iv) Thereafter, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad,
Division, issued an Occupancy Right Certificate No.B/905/10
dated 20.05.2010, in Form-III, in accordance with the provisions
of Section 4 read with Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh
(Telangana Area) Abolition of Inam Act, 1955, (for short, “the
Act, 1955”), whereby one Sri A.V.V.Siva Prasad, mentioned in
Sale Deed No.2107 of 2008 as representative of petitioner No.1,
was registered as the occupant in respect of dry land admeasuring
Ac.0.25 guntas in Sy.No.166, Ibrahimbagh Village. The remaining
extent of 801 square yards was claimed to have been purchased by
petitioner No.2 vide registered Sale Deed bearing Document
No.4564 of 2012 dated 15.11.2012, from the legal heirs of late
P.Babu Seth and others and the petitioners have been in
possession and enjoyment of the same.
(v) It is further submitted that the petitioners subsequently
came to know that respondent No.2 has published a Gazette
Notification in A.P.Gazette No.6A, dated 09.02.1989, at
Sl.No.3228, showing the subject property of the petitioners as a
Wakf property along with other properties situated at
TMD,J
WP_6898_2015
6
Nanakramguda, though the same is not the Wakf property but is
the absolute property of the petitioners.
2.4 It is submitted that, since 1955-58, the subject property has been
shown as belonging to the private individuals and in the year 1971, the
predecessors in title of the petitioners purchased the property through
registered Sale Deeds and have been in continuous possession and
enjoyment thereof. Thereafter, the petitioners acquired the property
through valid registered Sale Deeds and have been in possession ever
since. Thus, according to the petitioners, the title and ownership vests
with the petitioners and the same is duly reflected in the revenue records
and that it was never a Wakf property. It is further submitted that no
notices were ever served on the petitioners or their predecessors-in-title
by the respondents or their officials in respect of the said property and
therefore, the impugned Gazette Notification published is in
contravention of the provisions of Sections 4 to 6 of the Wakf Act, 1954.
The petitioners have also relied upon the decision of this Court in
W.P.Nos.12275 of 1993, 25392 of 1996 and 681 of 1997, wherein the
Gazette Notification dated 09.02.1989 issued by the Wakf Board,
relating to the properties at Sl.No.2900, was challenged and this Court
has passed a common order dated 04.01.2002 setting aside the Gazette
TMD,J
WP_6898_2015
7
Notification dated 09.02.1989. It is further stated that since the
petitioners herein nor their vendors were served with any notices at any
point of time by the respondents or their officials, the impugned Gazette
Notification is not binding on the petitioners and therefore, it same is
liable to be set aside. The petitioners therefore prayed to pass such order
or orders.
2.5 Along with the Writ Petition, the petitioners have filed copies of
the relevant registered Sale Deeds as well as the copies of the pahanies
pertaining to the period from 1955-1958 to 1980-1981.
3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners also placed
reliance upon the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in
B.Gowra Reddy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh1, wherein it was
held that a Gazette Notification issued under Section 6 of the Wakf Act,
1954 without conducting a proper enquiry as contemplated under Section
4 of the said Act is illegal and arbitrary.
4. At the time of admission, this Court had granted interim direction
as prayed for in W.P.M.P.No.9175 of 2015 and interim suspension as
prayed for in W.P.M.P.No.9176 of 2015 on 17.03.2015.
1
AIR 2002 AP 313
TMD,J
WP_6898_2015
8
5. Thereafter, I.A.No.1 of 2022 was filed by the proposed
respondents No.4 to 6 seeking their impleadment as respondents No.4 to
6 in W.P.No.6898 of 2015. In the said application, they denied the
contentions of the writ petitioners and submitted that the vendor of the
petitioners, namely Mr. P. Babu Seth S/o. P.Rangaiah, had impersonated
the original landowner namely Late Syed Pasha S/o. Late Syed Vazir Ali
Shah Quadri, succession holder (Takte-e-Verasat), as is evident from the
revenue records relied upon by the writ petitioners themselves. It is thus
submitted that the ownership of the subject land vested with one Syed
Pasha and not the vendor of the vendors of the writ petitioners, i.e., Syed
Kaleem Pasha. It is further submitted that the writ petitioners have
suppressed all the material facts and have approached this Court with
unclean hands and and obtained interim orders behind the back of the
proposed respondents No.4 to 6, contrary to the documentary evidence,
by playing fraud upon the Court, without making the original owners or
their legal representatives as parties to the Writ Petition. The implead
petitioners in I.A.No.1 of 2022/proposed respondents No.4 to 6 claim to
be the legal heirs of the original owners of the subject property.
TMD,J
WP_6898_2015
9
6. Pending consideration of the same, the writ petitioners have filed
a counter affidavit opposing the contentions of the implead petitioners,
and a reply affidavit has also been filed by the implead petitioners.
7.1. Thereafter, I.A.No.2 of 2022 has been filed by one Syed Sultan
Shah Moinuddin Quadri, seeking to implead himself as party respondent
No.4 in the writ petition. The implead petitioner in I.A.No.2 of 2022
claims to be the legal heir and great-grandson of the original owner of
the land in Sy.No.166 i.e., Hazarat Sayed Asadullah Shah Quadri and
claims that the subject land is Wakf property duly registered with the
Wakf Board, along with other properties in Sy.Nos.52, 61 and 62 of
Neknampur Village. It is submitted that there is a tomb (Dargah) of his
great-grandfather and that the annual Urs Sharif is in active performance
and the same will be performed under the Supervision of the Wakf Board
in huge gatherings. On that basis, the implead petitioner submitted that
he is a proper and necessary party to the Writ Petition.
7.2. The implead petitioner in I.A.No.2 of 2022 further claims that he
has been appointed as Mutavali vide orders
No.F.No.10/B2/M/RR/2009/Z-1Suppl dated 04.11.2020, issued by
respondent No.2 and that the land in Sy.No.52 admeasuring Acs.2.05
guntas, Sy.No.61 admeasuring Acs.4.14 guntas, Sy.No.62 admeasuring
TMD,J
WP_6898_2015
10
Ac.0.32 guntas, situated at Naiknampur Village and land admeasuring
Ac.0.25 guntas in Sy.No.166 situated at Ibrahimbagh Village, Golconda
Mandal, is his ancestral property and belongs to Darga Hazarath
Asadullah Shah Quardri, comprising of a Dargha, Mosque and
graveyard. It is stated that, since his appointment as Mutavali, he is
continuously taking care of his ancestral property. It is further stated that
there are attempts of land grabbers to encroach the said land and steps
are being taken to stop such illegal activities. In this regard, respondent
No.2 has issued communications dated 13.01.2020 to the Sub-Registrar,
Rajendranagar, Gandipet, for cancellations of sale deeds in respect of the
Wakf property in Sy.Nos.52, 61, 62 of Neknampur Village and
Sy.No.166 of Ibrahimbagh Village.
7.3. It is also stated that the descendants of Hazarath Asadullah Shah
Quardri have filed W.P.No.34069 of 2021 before this Court, challenging
the inaction of the Wakf Board in taking action against illegal
encroachment and execution of registered Sale Deeds in respect of the
said Wakf properties, and that the said Writ Petition is pending
consideration. It is thus alleged that the writ petitioners are trying to
grab the property in the guise of the sale deeds and that he should also be
made a party to the Writ Petition. The same is also under consideration.
TMD,J
WP_6898_2015
11
8. The respondents/writ petitioners have filed counter to the implead
petition in I.A.No.2 of 2022.
9. The writ petitioner have also filed a rejoinder to the counter filed
by respondent No.2.
10. Before deciding the Writ Petition on merits, it is therefore
necessary to first decide I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2022.
11.1 The applicants in I.A.No.1 of 2022 claim themselves to be proper
and necessary parties to the Writ Petition. However, according to the
writ petitioners, such claim is without any valid basis. In the counter
affidavit filed by the writ petitioners in I.A.No.1 of 2022, it is stated that
Mr.P.Babu Seth S/o. P.Rangaiah, purchased the subject property vide
registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.378 of 1971, dated
24.02.1971, from Mr. Syed Kaleem Pasha, the original owner and
possessor of the land, classified as double-crop wet land under a Tank
with an assessment of 20.88.
11.2 It is further stated that, vide Memorandum of Understanding
(MoU) dated 25.07.2005, Mrs. P. Shakuntala, wife of Late P. Babu Seth,
entered into an understanding with the grandsons of late Syed Pasha,
including the implead petitioner/proposed respondent No.3 herein,
TMD,J
WP_6898_2015
12
whereby it was acknowledged that the land admeasuring Ac.0.25 guntas
in Sy.No.166 and the land admeasuring Ac.0.10 guntas in Sy.No.166
Paiki, total admeasuring Ac.0.35 guntas, situated at Ibrahimbagh Village,
Golconda Mandal, Hyderabad District, had fallen to the share of his
brother, Syed Khareem Pasha, in a family arrangement and settlement
and that the husband of Mrs.P. Shakuntala, during his life time, had
purchased the same in 1971 and had been in his possession thereafter and
after his demise, his legal heirs and successors have been in continuous
possession and enjoyment of the said land.
11.3 It is also stated that, pursuant to the said MoU, Mrs.P.
Shakuntala, the wife of Late P. Babu Seth, paid an amount Rs.7,00,000/-
(Rupees Seven Lakhs only) to the grandsons of late Syed Pasha,
including the implead petitioner/proposed respondent No.3 and they
confirmed and ratified the Sale Deed and the rights, title and interest of
Mrs.P.Shakuntala in the said property, and relinquished and released all
their claims, if any, in the respect thereof, agreeing not to make any
claim whatsoever in the said property.
11.4 In view of the above, it is submitted that the implead petitioners
have no right, title or interest in the subject property. It is further stated
that the implead petitioners have failed to produce any document to show
TMD,J
WP_6898_2015
13
that they are successors-in-interest of the said property or that they have
ever been in possession thereof. It was also submitted that the implead
petition has been filed after a period of seven (07) years from the date of
filing of the Writ Petition, and therefore, the same is liable to be
dismissed on this ground also.
12. The implead petitioners have also filed a reply affidavit in
I.A.No.1 of 2022 denying the contentions raised in the counter affidavit
filed by the writ petitioner.
13. This Court finds that the implead petitioners in I.A.No.1 of 2022
have not placed on record any document to substantiate their claim or
establish any right, title or interest in the subject property, whereas the
writ petitioners have filed copies of registered Sale Deeds in their favour.
It is also noted that an Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) has been
issued in favour of one A.V.V.Siva Prasad, as representative of
petitioner No.1, by the Revenue Divisional Officer, after following due
procedure. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the
implead petitioners in I.A.No.1 of 2022 have failed to establish their
bona fides or any prima facie right over the subject property and
therefore, they are not proper and necessary parties to this Writ Petition.
14. Accordingly, I.A.No.1 of 2022 is dismissed.
TMD,J
WP_6898_2015
14
15. As regard I.A.No.2 of 2022, the petitioner therein claims to be the
great-grandson of Hazarat Sayed Asadullah Shah Quardri, who is stated
to be the original owner of the land in Sy.No.166 and in support of such
a claim, he placed reliance upon the proceedings dated 04.11.2020 issued
by the Chief Executive Officer, Telangana State Wakf Board. The said
proceedings, however, are subsequent to the impugned Gazette
Notification in the present Writ Petition.
16. The writ petitioners have filed counter affidavit denying the
allegations made in I.A.No.2 of 2022 and contended that the implead
petitioner in I.A.No.2 of 2022 has approached this Court belatedly and
with unclean hands by making misrepresentations. It is further noted
that the objections raised by the writ petitioners in I.A.No.1 of 2022 are
also taken in this counter affidavit. It is stated that the proposed
respondent/implead petitioner in I.A.No.2 of 2022 has failed to produce
a single document to show that the said property is his ancestral property
or that he has been taking care of the subject property continuously.
Reference is also made to the MoU dated 25.07.2005, wherein the
implead petitioner in I.A.No.2 of 2022 was also a party, and therefore, he
cannot now plead otherwise. As regards the contentions of the implead
petitioner that he is working as Mutavali of the subject Wakf property, it
TMD,J
WP_6898_2015
15
is stated that disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against him
pursuant to a complaint dated 19.12.2007 made by one Janab Syed
Hamed Shah Quadri and he was placed under suspension. It is further
stated that the implead petitioner approached this Court in
W.P.No.11444 of 2020 seeking permission to discharge his functions as
Mutawali of the subject Wakf institution and upon examination of the
matter, the Wakf Board vide proceedings dated 13.10.2020, resolved to
drop the disciplinary proceedings against the implead petitioner
temporarily on the ground that the enquiry had been initiated without
notice. Consequently, the implead petitioner was reinstated as Mutawali
of the subject Wakf institution vide order dated 04.11.2020. It is stated
that the aforesaid material facts were not disclosed by the implead
petitioner in the implead petition and thus, he has approached this Court
with unclean hands and therefore, prayed that the implead petition be
dismissed.
17. The implead petitioner in I.A.No.2 of 2022 on the other hand has
filed a copy of the plaint in O.S.No.94 of 2022 on the file of the Wakf
Tribunal, which was instituted by him against the writ petitioners as well
as the other respondents, to submit that the sale deeds pertaining to the
TMD,J
WP_6898_2015
16
subject property of the Writ Petition are pending adjudication before the
Tribunal.
18. On 10.10.2025, one Sri Shiak Chand Ahmed, learned counsel for
the implead petitioner in I.A.No.2 of 2022, submitted that the implead
petitioner was not interested in pursuing the said application and does
not want to implead himself in W.P.No.6898 of 2015, and accordingly,
sought permission to withdraw the application. In view thereof, the said
application was dismissed as withdrawn. However, on 22.12.2025, the
petitioner in I.A.No.2 of 2022 had appeared in person and submitted that
he had never authorized Sri Shaik Chand Ahmed, learned counsel, either
to appear on his behalf or to withdraw the implead petition. He further
submitted that a complaint had been made against the said counsel and
sought time to file a fresh petition. Thereafter, for arguments of learned
Standing Counsel for Wakf Board, the matter was directed to be listed
under the caption “part heard”. On 16.02.2026, the Writ Petition has
been heard and was reserved for orders.
19. In view thereof, I.A.No.2 of 2022 also has to be decided. This
Court finds that the petitioner in I.A.No.2 of 2022, except stating that he
is the great-grandson of the original owner, has not filed a single
document to prove his ownership over the property. It is further noted
TMD,J
WP_6898_2015
17
that the implead petitioners in both I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2022 are parties to
the MoU dated 25.07.2005 and none of them have denied the existence
or validity of the said document. Accordingly, this Court is of the view
that I.A.No.2 of 2022 is not maintainable and is accordingly liable to be
dismissed.
20. Accordingly, I.A.No.2 of 2022 is dismissed.
21. As far as the merits of the Writ Petition are concerned, both the
petitioners claim to be the owners and possessors of their extent of the
subject property having purchased the same under registered Sale Deeds.
The Sale Deed of petitioner No.1 is of the year 1971 and the Sale Deed
of petitioner No.2 is of the year 2012 and the impugned Gazette
Notification is of the year 1989. Therefore, the sale deed executed in
favour of petitioner No.1 is prior to issuance of notification. It is to be
noted that prior to issuance of the notification under Wakf Act, 1954, a
proper enquiry ought to have been conducted under Section 4 of the
Wakf Act, 1954. There are various decisions of this Court, including the
decision in the case of B.Gowra Reddy (cited supra), wherein it was held
that enquiry has to be conducted after issuing notices to the affected
parties. It is also evident from the revenue records that the predecessors-
in-interest of petitioners are reflected as possessors of the subject
TMD,J
WP_6898_2015
18
property from the date of purchase in 1971-72. It is clear and necessary
that notices will have to be given to such of the parties on record at the
time of conduct of survey. It is not claimed that any notice has been
given to the pattadars at the time of survey.
22. Respondent No.3 also filed a counter affidavit along with a vacate
stay petition seeking to vacate the interim order granted in
W.P.M.P.No.9175 of 2015 and W.P.M.P.No.9176 of 2015. In the
counter affidavit, it is stated that as per the Sethwar, the land in
Sy.No.166 situated at Ibrahimbagh Village, Golconda Mandal, is
classified as “Chowtha Inam” to an extent of Ac.0.25 guntas and in
Column No.6, the pattadar is recorded as Syed Pasha Saheb. It is further
stated that as per the Pahani for the year 1973-74, in Column No.11, the
pattadar is shown as Syed Pasha Saheb and in Column No.16, the
possessor is shown as Beenaknath Veeresham. It is further stated that as
per the Sethwar, the land in Sy.No.166 Paiki situated at Ibrahimbagh
Village, Golconda Mandal, is recorded as Sarkari in Column No.3 and
in Column No.6, Syed Pasha Saheb is shown as pattadar to an extent of
Ac.0.10 guntas. As per the Pahani for the year 1973-74, Sy.No.166 Paiki
in Column No.11 is recorded in the name of Syed Pasha Saheb and in
Column 16, the possessor is shown as Benaknath Veeresham. It is also
TMD,J
WP_6898_2015
19
stated that one Sri A.V.V.Siva Prasad has filed an application for
issuance of Occupancy Rights Certificate before the Revenue Divisional
Officer, Hyderabad Division, in respect of Sy.No.166 of Ibrahimbagh
Village, Golconda Mandal, and that the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Hyderabad Division, has issued Occupancy Rights Certificate on
20.05.2010. It is further stated that the Chief Executive Officer, Wakf
Board vide letter dated 03.08.2016, informed the Mandal Revenue
Officer of the Gazette Notification No.6A dated 09.02.1989, at
Sl.No.3228, in respect of Sy.Nos.52 and 61 at Neknampura Village and
Sy.No.166 at Ibrahimbagh Village to an extent of Ac.0.25 guntas, relates
to Wakf land. It is also stated that another application was filed by Sri
Syed Sulthan Mohinuddin Shah Quadri claiming to be Inamdar of
Villages Neknampura and Ibrahimbagh in respect of Sy.No.166 to an
extent of Ac.0.25 guntas of Ibrahimbagh Village, stating that the same is
notified Wakf land and requested for mutation. A report in that regard
was submitted to the Revision Divisional Officer, Hyderabad Division,
vide office letter dated 11.02.2014. Thus According to respondent No.3,
as per revenue records, Sy.No.166 and 166 Paiki are Inam lands
governed under the provisions of Section 4 of the Act, 1955, and that the
subject land vested in the Government free from all encumbrances. It is
further stated that No Objection Certificates sought by Sri A.V.V.Siva
TMD,J
WP_6898_2015
20
Prasad on behalf of petitioner No.1 and by Sri V. Rama Murthy on
behalf of petitioner No.2 were rejected by the Collector vide letters dated
07.09.2016. Accordingly, it is prayed that the interim orders be vacated
and the Writ Petition be dismissed. However, no document whatsoever
in support of the above averments are filed by respondent No.3.
23. Proposed respondent No.4-Syed Shah Quadri, has filed a counter
affidavit in the writ petition. However, since the implead petition has
been dismissed, the same is not taken into consideration.
24. Respondent No.2 has filed counter affidavit, but the same has
been returned and was not resubmitted and therefore, the contentions
therein are not available. However, the writ petitioners have filed a
rejoinder to the counter filed by respondent No.2 and on perusal of the
same, it does not appear that any substantial grounds have been taken by
respondent No.2 except claiming the subject land to be Wakf property.
25. Learned Standing Counsel for the Wakf Board, appearing for
respondent No.2, pleaded that the survey was conducted much earlier by
following due procedure and the alleged vendors of Mr.P. Babu Seth did
not assail the same and therefore, the successors-in-interest of Mr.P.Babu
Seth, i.e., the petitioners herein, cannot challenge the same at this stage
after a long delay of nearly 30 years. He placed reliance upon the
TMD,J
WP_6898_2015
21
decision of this Court in the case of V. Aruna v. State of Telangana 2 in
W.P.No.7570 of 2019 and batch dated 10.03.2020 and prayed for
dismissal of the Writ Petition.
26. Therefore, this Court finds that the issue to be decided in this case
is about the validity of the Gazette Notification No.6A dated 09.02.1989
in respect of subject land to an extend of Ac.0.25 guntas in Sy.No.166
and Ac.0.10 guntas in Sy.No.166 Paiki of Ibrahimbagh Village. This
Court finds that this issue is fairly covered in favour of the petitioner by
the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in B.Gowra Reddy
(cited supra), which has been confirmed by the Division Bench of this
Court in W.A.Nos.745 and 868 of 2002, 778 and 885 of 2002 and 729
and 878 of 2022 dated 21.03.2011. Further, in respect of the very same
Gazette Notification No.6A dated 09.02.1989, this Court in
W.P.No.9378 of 2009 held that there was an inordinate delay between
the conduct of survey in 1960 and the publication of Gazette Notification
in 1989 and that during the intervening period of nearly three decades,
several legislative and administrative changes have taken place.
Therefore, the survey conducted in the year 1960 could not, by any
stretch of imagination, form the basis for issuance of the notification in
2
2020 (4) ALD 569
TMD,J
WP_6898_2015
22
the year 1989. It is accordingly held that the notification dated
09.02.1989 cannot be said to be in conformity with the provisions of the
Wakf Act. It is further noted that the W.A.No.1010 of 2012 filed against
the order in W.P.No.9378 of 2009 was dismissed by a Division Bench of
this Court. It is also noticed that the validity of the Gazette Notification
No.6A dated 09.02.1989 came up for consideration before the Divison
Bench of this Court in W.A.No.318 of 2021 and batch and vide judgment
dated 12.11.2021, the same were also dismissed by following the
judgment in B.Gowra Reddy (cited supra) and W.P.No.9378 of 2009.
The single judgment in which all the relevant judgments referred above
is reproduced hereunder:
“This Court in B.Gowra Reddy vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh
while dealing with the very same notification, dated 09.02.1989, at
paragraph Nos.26, 29, 32 and 33 has held as under:
“26. A survey of various decisions referred to above would led to
two issues, which have to be considered by this Court, viz., whether
there was a contravention of the provision of Sections 4 to 6 of the Act
and whether the writ petitions are maintainable under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.
29. The pre-requisite for publishing the Wakf is an enquiry to be
conducted under Section 4 of the Act and such an enquiry report has
to be forwarded to the State Government, who in turn has to forward
the same to the Wakf Board and the Wakf Board is required to
examine the report and thereafter publish the list of Wakfs in the
Official Gazette. If these requirements were fulfilled, then the
TMD,J
WP_6898_2015
23contention of the learned Counsel for the Wakf Board and the learned
Government Pleader would be sustainable. When the pre-requisite
for publishing the Wakf is not fulfilled, then the question would
remain Whether that can be challenged under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India or in a suit as is sought to be contended by the
learned Counsel for the respondents.
32. It is true that under Section 83 of the Act any dispute arising
out of Wakf properties can be agitated only before the Tribunal
constituted under the Act. But, in the instant cases, the very principal
requirement of notice and conducting enquiry as envisaged under the
Act are lacking. Therefore, the question of driving the petitioners to
the Tribunal would not arise. Admittedly, the petitioners have made
out their occupation rights from Mr.Rangaiah’s possession and
thereafter, Mr.Lakshmaiah and they have purchased the land under
registered sale deeds and that too after obtaining appropriate
permission from the Competent Authority and it is also one of the
contentions of the petitioners that they have acquired title by adverse
possession. But, I am not inclined to adjudicate the same inasmuch as
I am only concerned with the validity of the notification published in
the Gazette on 9.2.1989. The decision referred to by the learned
Counsel for Wakf Board that the petitioner have to approach the
Tribunal or the Civil Court, as the case may be, even after the expiry
of one year period after the publication of Gazette notification is not
applicable to the present cases, as that situation would not arise
inasmuch as when the notice itself is lacking and no purpose will be
served by approaching the Tribunal, or Civil Court. It is also to be
noted that the report of the Survey Commissioner sent by the
Government to the Wakf Board has no automatic acceptance. It is
required to examine such report before publishing the list. This
statutory obligation is also totally lacking in this case. When the
violation of statutory provisions is made out, it is always open to the
TMD,J
WP_6898_2015
24parties to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. Admittedly, as can be seen from various documents filed by
both the parties in these matters, nothing has been established to
sustain the contention that the enquiry was conducted as required
under Section 4(3) of the Act. In such a situation, it cannot be said
that the impugned Notification is binding on the petitioners and
accordingly, the petitioners are entitled to challenge the same as it is
illegal and not enforceable as far as petitioners are concerned.
Accordingly, I have to reject the contention raised on behalf of the
Wakf Board and also the Government in this regard.
33. It is also to be noted in this regard that though the Wakf Board
has been contending that the property in question is a Wakf property,
which was notified in the Official Gazette as early as in 1989, but it is
surprising to note that till today no action has been initiated either for
evicting the petitioners or for recovery of possession of the Wakf
property and no proceedings were initiated before the Tribunal
constituted under the Act. None of the revenue records even whisper
about the property as belonging to Wakf Board. It appears that the
Wakf Board has filed an appeal only against the order of granting
occupancy rights to the petitioners, and that too after one year and
half decades which is pending before the appellate authority on which
I am not inclined to make any comments. Under these circumstances,
I have to necessarily hold that the notification published by the Wakf
Board in the Gazette on 09.02.1989 is not valid and the same is not
binding on the petitioners. Accordingly, it is set aside as far as the
petitioners are concerned. So far as the relief for quashing the
proceedings pending before the appellate authority under the Inams
Abolition Act is concerned, I am not inclined to do so. It is open for
the parties to agitate their respective rights before the appropriate
authority.”
TMD,J
WP_6898_2015
25
In A.P. State Wakf Board vs. Hyderabad Archdioceses Society
Archbishop House, this Court while dealing with the notification, dated
29.12.1988, at paragraph Nos.16 and 33 to 36 has held as under:
16. In the light of the above submissions referred to above, the
following points arise for consideration in this batch of appeals.
1) Whether the learned Single Judge is justified in
setting aside the notification and giving a finding with
regard to title of the property in a proceeding under
Article 226 of the Constitution, which are summary in
nature?
2) ……
3) …..
33. Once it is established that before notifying the property
as Wakf no notice as such was issued to the persons, whose rights
are likely to be affected, they can always maintain the writ petition
questioning the notification.
34. It is now well settled that notification issued under sub-
section (1) of Section 6 of Wakf Act making list as final and
conclusive between the Wakf Board and the Muttawalli land the
persons interested in the Wakf and not to extend its scope to the
persons who are not persons interested in the Wakf. Therefore, the
right, title and interest of a stranger, a non-Muslim to the Wakf in
a property cannot be put in jeopardy merely because that property
is included in the list of Wakfs. (See Board of Muslim Wakfs v.
Radha Kishan 9179) 2 SCC 468)
35. The Supreme Court in PUNJAB WAKF BOARD v.
GRAM PANCHAYAT (2000) 2 SCC 121) and SAAYYED ALI v.
A.P.WAKF BOARD, HYDERABAD (1998) 2 SCC 642) reiterated
that the persons who are not served with any notice can file the
writ petition challenging the notification.
TMD,J
WP_6898_2015
26
36. In view of the same, quashing notification on the
ground that persons, who are likely to be affected by such
notification, have not been served with any notice is justified. The
rest of the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge with
regard to claim of the Wakf Board to notify the property as Wakf
Property and title of the writ petitioners vis-Ã -vis Wakf Board, the
learned Judge was not justified in deciding the said issue, which is
dealt with in points Nos.2 and 3.
A learned Single Judge of this Court, in W.P. No.9378 of 2009,
by order dated 06.02.2012, while dealing with the very same notification,
dated 09.02.1989, in respect of Sy.Nos.302 and 303 of this very same
village i.e. Mamidipally Village, under similar set of facts, has held as
under:
“From this, it is clear that a detailed survey is required to
be conducted. The publication of the notification must be soon,
though not immediate, after the survey. The reason is that, any events,
that occur between the date of survey, and date of publication of the
notification would render the very exercise futile. If any substantial
development takes place between the two events, the survey conducted
earlier can not at all constitute the basis for publication. Even
otherwise, unreasonable delay would defeat the very objective,
underlying the provision.
It was way back in the year 1960, that the survey in respect
of the land in Sy.Nos.299 to 306 of Mamidipally village was
conducted under Section 4 of the Wakf Act, 1954. The publication
was made only in the year 1989. In the period of three decades, that
has intervened, several legislative and administrative changes have
taken place. The Inams Act came into force, and in the course of its
implementation, the ORCs were granted in respect of the lands. Had
any survey been conducted immediately preceding the publication in
the year 1989, the fact that the petitioners or their predecessors in
TMD,J
WP_6898_2015
27title had in possession and enjoyment of the property, as absolute
owners or were issued ORCs; could have been noticed, and issuance
of notification would certainly have become doubtful. By no stretch of
imagination, the survey conducted in the year 1960 can be said to be
the basis for publication of a notification in the year 1989. Therefore,
the notification dated 09.02.1989 cannot be said to be inconformity
with the provisions of the Wakf Act.
This Court, in B.Gowra Reddy‘s case (sura) dealt with the
manner in which the notification under challenge herein was issued,
and expressed the view that it does not accord with law. The
principle laid down therein covers the facts of this case also.
The third contention arises on account of the objection
raised by the 2nd respondent, the effect that the petitioners cannot
challenge the notification at this stage, when its right to file a suit
under the Act is barred.
The question as to whether the limitation and other aspects
covered by Section 4 to 6 of the Wakf Act would apply in relation to
proceedings initiated by third parties also, was dealt with by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Board of Muslim Wakfs, Rajasthan v.
Radha Kishan (1979) 2 SCC 468). It was held that the notification
would become final and conclusive as between the Wakf Board and
the Mutawalli, on the one hand, and the persons interested in the
wakf, on the other, but not against the persons, who are not interested
in the wakf. The petitioners herein did not claim any interest in the
wakf concerned.
For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed, as
prayed for.”
The order, dated 06.02.2012, passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.9378 of 2009 has been confirmed by the Division Bench of this
Court in W.A.No.1010 of 2012 vide judgment dated 07.11.2013, and the
same has become final.
TMD,J
WP_6898_2015
28
……
11. In the considered opinion of this Court, once the Division Bench
of this Court while dismissing the Writ Appeal i.e., W.A.No.1010 of 2012 has
upheld the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 06.02.2012, by
which the Notification, dated 09.02.1989 was set aside, the question of taking
a different view in the present Writ Appeals does not arise. Once the
Notification has been held to be bad in law and the land which was subject
matter of the Notification is again subject matter of the same Notification, this
Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the
learned Single Judge in allowing the writ petitions.”
27. Further, in a recent judgment dated 17.04.2026 in W.P.No.16121
of 2020 and batch, this Court has held that Gazette Notification issued
under Section 6 of the Wakf Act, 1954, as null and void. Further, it is
also noticed that Occupancy Rights Certificate No.B/905/2010 in Form-
III, issued under Section 4 read with Section 10 of the Act, 1955, in
favour of the representative of petitioner No.1 on 20.05.2010, has not
been challenged till date and has neither been cancelled nor set aside.
Therefore, the Gazette Notification dated 09.02.1989 issued by the Wakf
Board is held to be without jurisdiction and is accordingly set aside.
28. In the result;
(i) I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2022 are dismissed and the implead petitioners
are at liberty to avail alternate remedy.
TMD,J
WP_6898_2015
29
(ii) W.P.No.6898 of 2015 is allowed. There shall be no order as to
costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand
dismissed.
___________________________
JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
Date:05.05.2026
PRN
[ad_1]
Source link
