IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J.
Shaik Apsar Hussen – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 32377 of 2022
Decided on : 11-07-2023
Wakf Property - Errata Notification - A.P. Gazette No.43-A, dated 24.10.1963 - Summary: The court quashed the impugned Addendum to Errata Notification bearing No.32, dated 13.08.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent/Board. The court found that the addendum was issued without proper enquiry, violated principles of natural justice, and lacked sufficient evidence to establish the subject lands as wakf properties. The court allowed the writ petition, providing the Board with the option to issue fresh notification after due process or consider filing a civil suit for declaration of its title in respect of the subject property.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners claimed ownership of the subject property, alleging that it was not wakf property. They contended that the errata notification was issued without proper enquiry and violated principles of natural justice. The respondents argued that the subject lands were wakf properties and the petitioners' claim was time-barred.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the addendum notification was issued without proper enquiry, violated principles of natural justice, and lacked sufficient evidence to establish the subject lands as wakf properties. The court allowed the writ petition, providing the Board with the option to issue fresh notification after due process or consider filing a civil suit for declaration of its title in respect of the subject property.
Issues: 1. Validity of the Addendum to Errata Notification 2. Ownership of the subject property 3. Applicability of time-barred claim
Ratio Decidendi: The impugned addendum notification was issued without proper enquiry, violated principles of natural justice, and lacked sufficient evidence to establish the subject lands as wakf properties. The court allowed the writ petition, providing the Board with the option to issue fresh notification after due process or consider filing a civil suit for declaration of its title in respect of the subject property.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned Addendum to Errata Notification bearing No.32, dated 13.08.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent/Board. The Board was provided with the option to issue fresh notification after due process or consider filing a civil suit for declaration of its title in respect of the subject property.
ORDER :
This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:
2. The petitioners filed this writ petition through their constituted Power of Attorney Holder. According to them, the subject property originally belonged to one Mr. Nawab Mohammed Ashraf Khan Bahadur, Son of late Nawab Mohammed Anwar Khan Bahadur (political pensioner), Resident of Kurnool and he enjoyed the subject land as pattadar. Later, he offered to sell the same and forefathers of the petitioners have accepted it and accordingly the subject lands were conveyed under a settlement Deed document No.1576 of 1954, dated 08.09.1954, for a total consideration of Rs.2,000/-and accordingly the vendees were inducted into possession of 1/8th share each and ever since the families of the petitioners have been in possession and enjoyment continuously. Ultimately, the petitioners being the legal heirs have succeeded the property. The petitioners’ family is bona fide purchaser of the subject land for valuable consideration. Recently, the petitioners intended to sell the property and when they made enquiries as to the stamp duty , they were informed that the subject property was included in prohibited list of properties from registration of documents pursuant to the Errata Notification bearing No.32 dated 13.08.2019 claiming to be the Addendum to the original notification published in the A.P.Gazette bearing No.43-A, published in the supplemental Part-II dated 24.10.1963. In fact, the subject property is not a wakf property all through till date.
It is the further case of the petitioners that, when they approached the respondent/Board and enquired about the reasons for issuance of Errate, they learnt that it was published basing upon the survey report dated 30.04.1956 said to be of Survey Commissioner of wakf, which is absolutely false and incorrect. The information procured by the petitioners through Right to Information Act, 2005 reveals that, in the Commissioner’s Report on the Survey of Wakfs, at column No.5(a) of the report, the name of the wakif, who dedicated the subject properties and made it as wakf, was recorded as ‘ not known’. Further, it does not have any survey numbers, extent or area, boundaries etc., and there is no reference to survey Nos. to identity the properties on ground and the said report does not contain the subject survey Nos. Basing on such report, a notification was published on 24.10.1963 by the State Government in exercise of powers vested under the provisions of the Wakf Act, 1954. Therefore, the said notification was sought to be amended by issuance of addendum form of errata notification dated 13.08.2019 by the 2nd respondent/Board without any material available on record. There was no specific description or particulars of the subject property and what all shown there in was as TD Nos. with T.D.Nos.3073, 3716 and 3718 of Munagalapadu village and TD No.1288 of Ga
Gosula Ramulu and others v. A.P.Wakf Board, Hyderabad and others
State of Andhra Pradesh (Now State of Telangana) v. A.P.State Wakf Board and others
The impugned addendum notification was issued without proper enquiry, violated principles of natural justice, and lacked sufficient evidence to establish the subject lands as wakf properties.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Original Gazette Notification of Wakf properties attains finality, and any subsequent Errata Notification issued after a long lapse of tim....
Notifications claiming property as Waqf land are invalid without proper survey and notice to concerned parties, emphasizing due process under the Waqf Act.
The court ruled that proper inquiry and adherence to statutory procedures are essential for valid Waqf declarations, invalidating the notification in this case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the dismissal of the Writ Petition challenging the Gazette Notification, with the court granting the petitioner liberty to raise objections before ....
The court ruled that the notification declaring lands as waqf property was invalid due to procedural lapses and lack of evidence, affirming the petitioners' ownership rights.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.