Back
2020 Supreme(Telangana) 68
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICDATURE FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
P. Naveen Rao, J.
V.Aruna, W/o. V Srinivas Reddy - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Telangana & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition Nos.7570, 8130, 9151, 11539, 22949, 23185, 23229, 23301, 23320, 23750, 23760, 23777, 24235, 24236, 24396, 24416, 24448, 24531, 24587, 24684, 24910, 25094, 25165, 25245, 25621, 25683 & 25691 of 2019
Decided On : 10-03-2020
Point of Law
Provision contained in the proviso to Section 6(1) that no such suit shall be entertained by the Tribunal after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs shall be applicable to every person who though not interested in the wakf concerned, is interested in such property and to whom a reasonable opportunity had been afforded to represent his case by notice served on him in that behalf during the course of the relevant inquiry under Section 4.
Headnote:
Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 – Section 8 r/w. Section 10 – Petitioners are aggrieved by inclusion of properties claimed to be owned by them in the Gazette Notification declaring the same as wakf properties and challenge the said Gazette Notification and seek declarations and directions – Held, provision contained in the proviso to Section 6(1) that no such suit shall be entertained by the Tribunal after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs shall be applicable to every person who though not interested in the wakf concerned, is interested in such property and to whom a reasonable opportunity had been afforded to represent his case by notice served on him in that behalf during the course of the relevant inquiry under Section 4 – As held by the Tribunal as well as the High Court, the property in question does not find place in the gazette notification published under Section 5 of the Wakf Act. In other words, the property in question is not notified in the Official Gazette as wakf property. If anybody including the Wakf Board or the plaintiff was aggrieved by such non-inclusion of the property in the list notified, the aggrieved person should have raised the dispute under Section 6 within a period of one year from the date of publication of the gazette notification in the matter – Procedure was not followed before issuing gazette notification there is no averment as to why their vendors did not assail the gazette notification, assuming that due procedure was not followed. Thus, as issue of validity of gazette relates back to 1989, these writ petitions are hit by delay and laches. The writ petitions fail on this ground also. Merely because registering authorities entertained deeds of conveyance on subject land till recently, but stopped due to certain complaints filed against such registration is no ground to test the validity of gazette publication dated 09.02.1989 after long lapse of time on the touchstone of notice and opportunity. Registering a deed of conveyance is entirely different from testing the validity of gazette publication – Petition dismissed
Facts of the Case:
petitioners claim that General Power of Attorney was executed in their favour by Smt Bommaku Salamma, Sri Bommaku Srisailam and Sri Bommaku Pandu, residents of Boduppal Village, in respect of plot bearing No.123 Northern Part in Sy.Nos.46 Part, 49 Part and 50 Part admeasuring 150 Square yards in R.N.S. Colony, Boduppal Village, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. According to petitioners, when they sought to present the deed of conveyance, the Sub-Registrar, Uppal-7th respondent refused to accept the document presented for registration, by referring to letter dated 25.02.2019, written by the Commissioner & Inspector General of Stamps and Registration, informing prohibition on registration of deeds of conveyance on the properties mentioned in the said letter. On further request, petitioners were supplied copy of the Gazette publication
Finding of the Court:
provision contained in the proviso to Section 6(1) that no such suit shall be entertained by the Tribunal after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs shall be applicable to every person who though not interested in the wakf concerned, is interested in such property and to whom a reasonable opportunity had been afforded to represent his case by notice served on him in that behalf during the course of the relevant inquiry under Section 4 – As held by the Tribunal as well as the High Court, the property in question does not find place in the gazette notification published under Section 5 of the Wakf Act. In other words, the property in question is not notified in the Official Gazette as wakf property. If anybody including the Wakf Board or the plaintiff was aggrieved by such non-inclusion of the property in the list notified, the aggrieved person should have raised the dispute under Section 6 within a period of one year from the date of publication of the gazette notification in the matter – Procedure was not followed before issuing gazette notification there is no averment as to why their vendors did not assail the gazette notification, assuming that due procedure was not followed. Thus, as issue of validity of gazette relates back to 1989, these writ petitions are hit by delay and laches. The writ petitions fail on this ground also. Merely because registering authorities entertained deeds of conveyance on subject land till recently, but stopped due to certain complaints filed against such registration is no ground to test the validity of gazette publication dated 09.02.1989 after long lapse of time on the touchstone of notice and opportunity. Registering a deed of conveyance is entirely different from testing the validity of gazette publication
Result: Petition dismissed
ORDER :
In all these writ petitions, petitioners are aggrieved by inclusion of properties claimed to be owned by them in Sy.Nos.45 to 50, 91, 93, 103 EE and 116 of Boduppal Village, in the Gazette Notification dated 09.02.1989, declaring the same as wakf properties and challenge the said Gazette Notification and seek declarations and directions.
2. Based on the averments in the writ petitions broadly, these writ petitions can be put into two groups. However, as the principal challenge is to gazette notification dated 09.02.1989 and grounds urged are pari materia same, they are considered together and common order is passed.
Group-I:
3. Writ Petition Nos.7570, 8130, 9151, 11539, 22949, 23185, 23229, 23301, 23320, 23750, 23760, 24235, 24236, 24448, 24684, 24910, 25094, 25165, 25245 & 25691 OF 2019.
4. For convenience, the facts of W.P.No.22949 of 2019 are taken. According to the averments in the affidavit filed in support of W.P.No.22949 of 2019, petitioners claim that General Power of Attorney was executed in their favour by Smt Bommaku Salamma, Sri Bommaku Srisailam and Sri Bommaku Pandu, residents of Boduppal Village, in respect of plot bearing No.123 Northern Part in Sy.Nos.46 Part, 49 Part and 50 Part admeasuring 150 Square yards in R.N.S. Colony, Boduppal Village, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. According to petitioners, when they sought to present the deed of conveyance, the Sub-Registrar, Uppal-7th respondent refused to accept the document presented for registration, by referring to letter dated 25.02.2019, written by the Commissioner & Inspector General of Stamps and Registration, informing prohibition on registration of deeds of conveyance on the properties mentioned in the said letter. On further request, petitioners were supplied copy of the Gazette publication dated 09.02.1989, wherein several extents of land of Boduppal village, in all Ac.294.20 guntas, were shown as wakf properties.
5. In the affidavit filed in support of writ petition, petitioners traced the history of flow of title. According to petitioners, the predecessors were the pattadars and possessors and in enjoyment over the land mentioned above. The subject land was regularized under Section 8 r/w. Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, vide proceedings, dated 20.07.1996. It is a private patta land and no fetters on alienation can be imposed.
Group-II:
6. In W.P.Nos.23777, 24396, 24416, 24531, 24587, 25621, & 25683 of 2019, petitioners claim to have purchased plots of land in a layout. In all these writ petitions, petitioners trace the ownership to Sri J.Mallaiah on land to an extent of Acs.18.00 guntas in Sy.Nos.91 and 93 of Boduppal village. Petitioners also speak of regularization.
7. For convenience, facts in W.P.No.24587 of 2019 are noted. Petitioners trace title to property to Sri J.Mallaiah. According to petitioners, name of J.Mallaiah, vendor of their mother’s vendors Sri P.Krishna Reddy and others was shown in revenue records in the pahanies of the years 1982-83 and 1984-85 to an extent of Acs.18.00 guntas in Sy.Nos.91 and 93 of Boduppal village. Mother of petitioners purchased 200 square yards of land vide document dated 30.08.1993 and she executed gift deed for 100 square yards each in favour of petitioners on 26.05.2008. These two pieces of land forms part of layout formed by vendors and there were number of sale transactions registered in the land forming part of the layout. Petitioners claim to have obtained building permission on 19.09.2019. When they went before Sub-Registrar to register agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney executed in favour of V.Hari Krishna Reddy, the same was refused referring to gazette dated 09.02.1989. It is to be noted that petitioners have included copies of pahanies for the years 1982-83 and 1984-85, whereas gazette was published on 19.02.1989.
8. Elaborate submissions are made by learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State Wakf Board and l
