The Tahasildar's order must be supported by the relevant legal provisions and jurisdiction. Findings of specialized tribunals may influence the determination of property rights.

JUDGMENT :

A.V. Sesha Sai, J

Since these two writ appeals arise out of one order, this Court deems it appropriate to hear and dispose of these two appeals by way of this common judgment.

2. Heard Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri S. Arifulla, learned Standing Counsel for the Andhra Pradesh State Waqf Board, for the appellant in WA.No.643 of 2022, Sri P. Subhash, learned Government Pleader for Revenue, for the appellants in WA.No.456 of 2022 and Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, representing OMR Law Firm, for the writ petitioner.

3. Challenge in these appeals, preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is to the order dated 07.10.2021, passed by the learned single Judge in WP.No.3348 of 2021.

4. By way of the order impugned in these appeals, learned single Judge allowed the writ petition, setting aside the order, dated 24.11.2020, passed by the Tahasildar, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District-4th respondent in the writ petition. The subject matter of the case on hand is an extent of Ac.1.03 cents in Sy.No.120 of Fazulbagpeta Village, Srikakulam Mandal, Srikakulam District. Writ petitioner submitted an application through mee-seva, requesting the Tahasildar to effect mutation in his favour in the revenue records in respect of the subject land situated in Sy.No.120 of Fazulbagpeta. The Tahasildar issued proceedings on 23.09.2020, directing mutation of the name of the writ petitioner in the revenue records. Admittedly, after the completion of the enquiry and the orders passed by the Tahasildar, on 23.09.2020, one Sri Habibul Khan, S/o late Khaliulla Khan, filed an objection petition stating that the subject land is a waqf property. On the basis of the said petition and the objections contained therein, the Tahasildar passed an order vide proceedings Rc.No.481/2020/A, dated 24.11.2020, setting aside the orders passed in favour of the writ petitioner earlier on 23.09.2020.

5. Challenging the validity and the legal sustainability of the afore-said order, dated 24.11.2020, the writ petitioner approached this Court by way of filing WP.No.3348 of 2021. The learned single Judge vide the order dated 07.10.2021, allowed the writ petition, setting aside the order dated 24.11.2020 and consequently directed the Tahasildar to mutate the name of the writ petitioner by following necessary procedure in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order.

6. Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri S. Arifulla, learned Standing Counsel for the A.P. State Waqf Board, contends that having regard to the pendency of civil cases and other writ petitions before this Court, the learned single Judge is not justified in passing the order under challenge. In elaboration, it is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that the civil revision petition filed by the A.P State Waqf Board vide CRP.No.44 of 2020 is pending consideration before this Court. It is also the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that the subject land is a notified waqf as such the learned single Judge grossly erred in setting aside the order passed by the Tahasildar.

7. Sri P. Subhash, learned Government Pleader, while totally supporting the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel, Sri P. Veera Reddy, submits that the order passed by the Tahasildar is obviously in the direction of rectifying the error committed earlier as such, the order of the Tahasildar, dated 24.11.2020, ought not to have been interfered with.

8. Strongly resisting the writ appeals, it is contended by Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, representing OMR Law Firm, for the writ petitioner, that there is absolutely no error nor there exists any infirmity in the order passed by the learned single Judge as such, the same warrants no interference of this Court under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. In elaboration, learned Senior Counsel contends that in O.S.Nos.1 of 2012 and 147 of 2012 on the file of the And