Common Order:

V.V.S. Rao, J.

PROLOGUE

In this group of seven writ petitions, the issue is whether the notification issued by Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board (the Wakf Board, for brevity) declaring certain lands as wakf properties is illegal and whether the allotment of those lands by the Government of Andhra Pradesh to Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (APIIC) and further allotment by the latter to third party industries is not illegal. Three writ petitions, being W.P.Nos.17192, 20614 and 20372 of 2007 challenge allotment of land and the remaining are filed for invalidation of the Wakf Board notification issued in 2006. The two questions need to be addressed without ignoring the fact that persons interested in the wakf have already filed suits before the Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Tribunal (the Wakf Tribunal) under the Wakf Act, 1995 (the Wakf Act, for brevity) and are pending for trial.

The battle line between the group opposing the wakf board’s decision and the other group supporting it is very well drawn given the strategic location of the land involved in the Government facilitated land transaction. The submissions spread over four days covered wide ranging issues with reference to Islamic Law of Wakfs, jagir land tenures and inam tenures. The core issue, however, which was focussed upon by the rival counsel is the maintainability of the writ petitions in view of the provisions of the Wakf Act entrusting the jurisdiction to resolve all disputes regarding wakfs to a specially constituted Wakf Tribunal and the provisions in the Wakf Act which expressly bars the jurisdiction of civil Courts. It is axiomatic that a Parliamentary law or a state law; a constitutional amendment included – denying judicial review by the Supreme Court and High Courts would be ultra vires as contravening basic structure doctrine. This is, however, not to suggest that the Court exercising judicial review power can ignore well settled judicially evolved principles which curtail the power on the ground of non-reviewability or non-justiciability besides other limitations in exercise of power.

INTRODUCTION

Dargah Hazrat Hussain Shah Vali (the Dargah, for brevity) statedly was endowed huge extents of land, allegedly by Muntakhab No.2643 (31 Amardad 1300 Fasli or 1890 AD) by the Nizam. The grant of jagir to the persons maintaining the Dargah (fateha, prayer and residence of mutawalli) is statedly service inam. Between 1951 and 1957 there were disputes among the successors of mutawalli on one hand and the wakf department on the other. The Nazim-e-Atiyat under Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Atiyat Enquiries Act, 1952 (the Atiyat Act, for brevity) and this Court in a writ petition declared the said property of the Dargah as conditional grant in favour of Dargah. An extent of 5506.50 square yards in survey Nos. 260/1, 261 and 262 of Manikonda village (also described as Dargah Hazrat Hussain Shah Vali village) was notified as wakf property of Dargah (the Mosque, Khankah and a house). It was done by A.P.Gazette Notification No.6A, dated 09.02.1989 as surveyed under Section 4(3) and published under Section 5(2) of the Wakf Act, 1954 (1954 Act, for brevity).

The Wakf Board published another notification, A.P.Gazette No.14, dated 06.04.2006, by way of addendum/errata to earlier notification (hereafter, errata notification) correcting columns 10, 11 and 12 of the Registration Form. As a result of this, the service inam lands attached to the Wakfs which were not notified were included in the list of wakfs. This land admeasuring Acs.1654.32 guntas in various survey numbers of Manikonda village (hereafter called, subject land or Manikonda lands) is at the centre of the controversy. The Government claims that the Manikonda land was jagir land and after abolition of jagirs under the Hyderabad (Abolition of Jagirs) Regulations, 1358 Fasli (hereafter Jagir Regulations), the land was taken over by the Government duly paying commutation amoun