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.

ORDER :

SUBBA REDDY SATTI PVD, J.

The 12^th 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 4^th 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 4^th respondent is hit by Section 7 of the WAKF ACT , 1995. The findings recorded in O.S.No.151 of 1975 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada, became final.

3. a) A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the 2^nd respondent. It was contended, inter alia, that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. The 4^th respondent, Mazlum Shah Darvesh Takia & Masjid- Wakf, represented by its Mutavalli, filed suit O.S.No.3 of 2024 against the writ petitioner and others for a declaration of title in respect of Ac.45.32 cents in R.S.No.249/1B1B of Guntupalli village. The property was recognised, as per the Survey Commissioner Report, on the survey of wakf dated 07.12.1955, as wakf property and notified in the Gazette. The Wakf tribunal directed the parties to maintain the status quo by its order dated 19.01.2024. The writ petitioner, instead of filing a written statement, filed the above writ petition.

b) In the counter affidavit, it was further pleaded about the British Regime; amendment to Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956. However, those averments are not extracted it being a legal aspect. It was further pleaded that the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 does not apply to the lands belonging to the State and Central Government. The petitioner suppressed the facts and secured the Pattadar Pass Book. The suit O.S.No.151 of 1975 was filed for recovery of possession from the defaulting tenants. The issue of title was not decided in the said suit. The scope and nature of suit O.S.No.151 of 1975 and O.S.No.3 of 2024 are different, and hence, Section 7 of the WAKF ACT , 1955 has no application. The judgment passed in contravention of the statute is non- est in the eye of the law. No individual can set up adverse possession to the Wakf property. Section 108-A of the WAKF ACT had an overriding effect on other Acts. The petitioner has an efficacious and alternative remedy under Section 83 (2) of the WAKF ACT and eventually prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

4. The 4^th respondent filed a separate counter-affidavit, reiterating the averments made in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 2^nd respondent. Since the averments in the counter affidavit of the 2