SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1974 Supreme(AP) 177

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : PUNNAIAH, S.OBUL REDDY
B.Narasappa - Appellant
Versus
Government Of A.P., represented by the secretary to Endowment Department Hyderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 11-28-74

The Commissioner of Wakfs and the Wakf Board lack jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes regarding the title or possession of properties claimed by third parties who are not interested in a wakf.

Headnote:

WAKF ACT - JURISDICTION OF WAKF BOARD - CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF SECTIONS 4 TO 7 - PRELIMINARY SURVEY OF WAKFS - DISPUTES REGARDING WAKFS - REGISTRATION OF WAKFS - DECISION OF BOARD ON QUESTION OF WAKF PROPERTY - SCOPE OF ENQUIRY - PERSONS INTERESTED IN WAKF - INTERPRETATION OF RELEVANT PROVISIONS - COURT'S ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, Lambadas, claimed possession of lands in Pochanpally village, Medak taluk, granted to them by revenue authorities. The inamdars filed a petition before the Commissioner of Wakfs alleging that the lands were wakf property. The Assistant Commissioner of Wakfs held an enquiry and declared the lands as wakf property, restraining the petitioners from cultivating them. The petitioners challenged the declaration and the jurisdiction of the Wakf Board, contending that the Assistant Commissioner had no authority to decide title disputes and that the impugned provisions of the Wakf Act were unconstitutional.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Commissioner of Wakfs had no jurisdiction to enquire into and decide the question of title to or possession of properties alleged to belong to third parties. The provisions of sections 4, 5, and 6 of the Wakf Act were examined, and it was determined that the Commissioner's powers were limited to making a preliminary survey of wakfs and submitting a report to the government. The Board could only decide disputes raised by persons interested in a wakf, as defined in section 3(h) of the Act. The court also held that the Wakf Board had no authority to decide disputes between third parties and the Board regarding the status of a property as wakf property.

Issues: 1. Whether the Commissioner of Wakfs has jurisdiction to enquire into and decide the question of title to or possession of properties alleged to belong to third parties. 2. Whether the impugned provisions of the Wakf Act are constitutionally valid.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted sections 4, 5, and 6 of the Wakf Act and concluded that the Commissioner of Wakfs' powers were limited to making a preliminary survey of wakfs and submitting a report to the government. The Board could only decide disputes raised by persons interested in a wakf, as defined in section 3(h) of the Act. 2. The court found that the Wakf Board had no authority to decide disputes between third parties and the Board regarding the status of a property as wakf property.

Final Decision: The writ petitions were allowed, and the declaration of the Assistant Commissioner of Wakfs was set aside. However, no order was made as to costs.

( 1 ) AS these three writ petitions raise common questions as to the jurisdiction of the Wakf Board and the Constitutional validity of sections 4 to 7 of the Wakf ace, 1954, they may be conveniently disposed of by a common Judgment.

( 2 ) FOR the purpose of answering the questions raised, it will sufficient If we sec ouc the facts seated in writ petition no. 4130 of 1971. The petitioners are all Lambadas They claim to be in possession of the lands situate in Pochanpally village, Medak taluk. They were granted pattas by the revenue authorities in respect of these lands and they have been cultivating the lands paying land revenue. The inamdars of the village filed a petition before the Commissioner of Wakfs alleging that the lands in possession of the petitioners are wakf property. That led to an Assistant Commissioner of Wakfs holding an enquiry under section 4 of the Act and ultimately deciding that the lands in question are wakf property. The Assistant Commissioner asked the Tahsildar not to allow the petitioners to raise any crops in the lands and restrain them from cultivating the lands. It is therefore, complained by the petitioners that the declaration made by the Assistant Commissioner that the lands are wakf property is contrary to the revenue records and the grant of pattas to them. It is also their case that the Assistant Commissioner has no jurisdiction to decide questions of title and the enquiry contemplated under the provisions of the Act does not clothe him with jurisdiction to enquire into the claims of persons other than those intersted in a wakf and, therefore, the order of the Assistant Commissioner declaring the lands as wakf property and registering them in the register of wakf is illegal and without jurisdiction. The order of the Assistant Commsssioner is also attacked on the ground that it encroaches upon th s rights of the petitioners to property under Article 19 (1) of the Constitution.

( 3 ) ON behalf of the respondents i. e. , the Government of Andhra Pradesh the wakf Board, the Commissioner of wakfs and the Government of India, a counter-affidavit is filed by a Deputy legislative counsel and ex-officio Deputy secretary to the Government of India, ministry of Law, justice and Company affairs Legislative Department, New delhi. According to the respondents, the Commissioner of wakfs is required to decide disputes as to title and possession and he has only exercised the quasi- judicial powers vested in him. It is the case of the respondents that the commissioner is not merely an Administrative officer, but One vested with the authority to exercise quasi-Judicial functions. It is further their case that the Commissioner of wakfs, while making a survey of wakfs. is required to conduct an enquiry and has been given the powers of a Civil court which Include the summoning of witnesses requiring the discovery and production of documents. They, therefore, contend that, if the petitioners have any claims, they will be at liberty to approach the commissioner of wakfs and tender evidence and show that the properties in question are not wakf properties. They denied that there is any deprivation of the rights of the petitioners to property. According to them, the impugned provisions of the Act do not suffer from the vice of unreasonableness or discrimination.

( 4 ) SO, what falls for consideration in these three writ petitions in the first instance, is whether the Commissioner of waks is vested with jurisdiction to enquire into and decide the question of title to or possession of the properties alleged to belong to the third parties. The relevant provisions of the Wakf Act may now be noticed; Under section 2, save as otherwise expressly provided under the Act the Act shall apply to ail wakfs whether created before or after the commencement of the Act. wakf has has been defined to mean the permanent dedication by a person professing islam of any moveable or immovable property for any purpose recognised by the musli










Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top