Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
SUBBA REDDY SATTI
Kalimela Kiran Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
ORDER :
SUBBA REDDY SATTI PVD, J.
The 12th defendant in O.S.No.3 of 2024 on the file of Andhra Pradesh Wakf Tribunal at Kurnool, filed the above writ petition seeking writ of prohibition.
2. a) Averments in the affidavit, germane, for consideration, are that the petitioner purchased the agricultural land of an extent of Ac.1.64 cents in S.No.249/1B1B, old S.No.54 of Guntupalli village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, NTR District. The land has been owned by the vendors since 1938. The revenue authorities updated the name of the petitioner in the Records of Rights and issued the Pattadar Pass Book. The petitioner sold an extent of Ac.0.28 cents to Devireddy Anjaneya Reddy and an extent of Ac.0.20 cents to Koneti Nagarani in the year 2017. The respective vendees also got Pattadar pass books. The agricultural land was converted into non-agricultural land. The petitioner is developing the land for commercial purposes.
b) The 4th respondent filed the suit as mentioned above, by suppressing the material facts and the earlier suit O.S.No.151 of 1975 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada. The suit filed by the 4th respondent is hit by Section 7 of the WAKF ACT , 1995. The findings recorded in
Wakf Tribunal lacked jurisdiction due to prior judgment in a civil suit settling the title, making the subsequent claims non-maintainable under Section 7(5) of the Wakf Act.
Civil courts lack jurisdiction over disputes involving Wakf properties as per the WAKF ACT, sections 83 and 85, which mandate that such matters be determined by the Wakf Tribunal.
The Wakf Tribunal's dismissal of the counterclaim was quashed, mandating reconsideration of property classification in compliance with registration provisions under the Wakf Act.
The court held that property classification as Wakf must comply with statutory requirements; insufficient evidence and flawed documentation make the Tribunal's ruling unsustainable.
The court determined that a 41-year delay in issuing a notification declaring land as wakf property was unreasonable, rendering it invalid, and affirmed that such matters could be addressed in writ p....
(1) In a Revision Petition scope of consideration is limited and judgment/order under challenge can be interfered only in event of there being perversity seen on face of order and if conclusion reach....
The rejection of a plaint for lack of cause of action must be substantively justified; merely asserting lack of merit without proper consideration of presented evidence is insufficient.
Disputes regarding Wakf property must be addressed solely by a Wakf Tribunal, not by civil courts, as observed under Section 85 of the Wakf Act, reinforcing prior court rulings.
Summary eviction under the A.P. Wakf Act is not permissible in the presence of bona fide disputes regarding property title, necessitating a full trial instead.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
