Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SUREPALLI NANDA, J.
Mir Sajjad Ali – Petitioner
Versus
Telangana State Waqf Board and Another – Respondents
W.P. No. 7530 of 2021
Decided On : 16-08-2023
Writ Petition - Waqf Property Lease - Waqf Act 1995, Section 56 - The court discussed the petitioner's claim for the execution of a lease deed for a waqf property and the respondent's failure to deliver possession. The court highlighted the provisions of Section 56 of the Waqf Act 1995, which require the state government's approval for leases exceeding thirty years for waqf properties. The court emphasized the respondent's obligation to obtain statutory approval and execute the lease deed in favor of the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner participated in a tender to lease a waqf property and submitted the highest bid. The respondent directed the petitioner to remit a security deposit, which the petitioner complied with. However, the respondent failed to execute the lease deed and deliver possession of the property to the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent's failure to execute the lease deed and deliver possession of the property to the petitioner was arbitrary and illegal.
Issues: The main issue was the respondent's failure to fulfill its obligations under the tender and the Waqf Act 1995.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondent's obligation to obtain statutory approval and execute the lease deed in favor of the petitioner was paramount, and the respondent's failure to do so was arbitrary and illegal.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondent to obtain the required statutory approval and execute the lease deed in favor of the petitioner, along with delivering possession of the waqf property to the petitioner.
ORDER :
1. Heard Mr. Vedula Venkataramana, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner and Mr. Abu Akram, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent-Wakf Board.
2. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the respondent in not executing MOU/lease in favour of the petitioner with respect to lease out the waqf property namely Hakeem Basheer Ahmed Waqf situated at H. No. 6-2-937, Main Road of Khairatabad, Opposite Shadan College, admeasuring 450 sq. yards situated at Hyderabad and failing to deliver possession of the same, after acceptance of the highest bid amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- per month and payment of Rs. 54,00,000/- towards 36 months advance as security deposit, for the aggregate period of 30 years for commercial and development purpose, is arbitrary and illegal and direct the respondent to forthwith execute the MOU/lease deed in favour of the petitioner who is the highest bidder in terms of the tender notification dated 05.08.2020 and also deliver possession of the said property to the petitioner so as to enable the petitioner to enjoy the leasehold rights effectively.
3. The case of the Petitioner in brief, is as follows:
(b) The tender notification was published in newspapers and in response to the same, the petitioner had participated in the same and submitted his tender at Rs. 1,50,000/- per month on rental basis and duly accepted the terms and conditions mentioned in the tender form of lease rules 2014.
(c) In response to the same, the respondent, vide letter dated 17.08.2020 has called upon the petitioner to remit the amount of Rs. 54,00,000/- towards 36 months advance as security deposit for the period of 30 years without interest, within 15 days from the date of the said letter by way of demand draft drawn in favour of the Chief Executive Officer, Telangana State Waqf Board and in default the EMD amount of Rs. 10 lakhs paid by the petitioner would stand forfeited.
(d) Subsequently, the petitioner had submitted the demand drafts/RTGS for a sum of Rs. 54,00,000/- within the stipulated time (which includes the initial EMD amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-), following which the respondent is obligated to enter into a lease deed and also deliver possession of the subject property to the petitioner. Despite payment of the highest bid amount i.e. Rs. 54,00,000/- which is inclusive of the EMD amount of Rs. 10 lakhs, the respondent has not taken any steps for executing a lease deed in petitioner’s favour and it has failed to deliver possession of the subject property.
(e) On 20.02.2021, the petitioner has submitted a representation requesting the respondent to deliver possession, execute MOU/Lease Deed document and register lease deed. Having accepted the said amount of Rs. 54,00,000/- the respondent has failed to execute MOU/lease deed in the name of the petitioner for a period of 30 years.
(f) Thus, the action of the respondent in retaining the amount and failing to deliver possession and failing to execute MOU/lease deed in petitioner’s favour for a period of 30 years, is patently arbitrary and illegal. Hence this Writ Petition.
PERUSED THE RECORD.
4. Representation submitted by the petitioner dated 20.02.2021, in particular, relevant paras are extracted herein:
The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of the respondent to obtain statutory approval and execute the lease deed in accordance with the provisions of the Waqf Act 1995, Se....
Compliance with the Waqf Act and Rules is essential in granting leases, and the authority of the Managing Committee under Section 18 of the Act is upheld.
Persons claiming interest in waqf property must demonstrate appropriate standing under the Waqf Act to challenge actions regarding the property, as determined by the defined scope of 'person interest....
The importance of truthfulness and full disclosure in legal proceedings.
The Waqf Board has the authority to review its resolutions, and the sale of Waqf property must adhere to statutory procedures to protect Waqf interests.
The Waqf Board must adhere to the rules of succession as per the waqf deed, reinforcing the principle of governance according to established customs and the intent of the waqif.
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.
The constitution of an inquiry commission by the State is valid despite challenges under the Waqf Act, 1995 when prior waqf declarations are arbitrary, devoid of proper procedure, and the property in....
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
