Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 14490
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, Sri Maheswara Rao Kunche, JJ
Smt. B. Rupalatha and Others – Appellant
Versus
State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep By Its Principal Secretary – Respondent
Writ Appeal No: 1083/2015 | W.P.No.30916 of 2014 | W.P.No.12412 | W.P.No.12875 of 2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: N Subba Rao
For the Respondents: GP FOR ASSIGNMENT (AP), GP FOR REVENUE (AP), K RAMAKANTH REDDY, SHAIK KHAJA BASHA
Rights of non-Wakf parties are not affected by declarations of Wakf property; they retain the ability to challenge such listings without the one-year limitation in the Wakf Act.
Headnote:(A) Wakf Act, 1954 - Sections 5 and 6 - Writ appeal challenging the classification of land as Wakf property - The appellants claimed title based on historical deeds predating the Wakf Act, stating possession was uninterrupted for 68 years. The Wakf Board contended the land is Inam Land dedicated for religious purposes, citing the issuance of a gazette notification. The court reiterated that such notifications under the Wakf Act are not binding on third parties, allowing appellants to challenge the inclusion of their property in the Wakf register through a suit. (Paras 6, 16, 20, 23)
(B) Land Rights - The principle established shows that notifications are not conclusive for individuals not part of the Wakf, and the right to challenge title remains open. (Para 13)
Facts of the case:
The appellants purchased plots and constructed houses, claiming that their possession dates back significantly before the Wakf Act. They faced issues when attempts to register property were blocked by the Wakf Board's notification declaring the land as Wakf.
Findings of Court:
The court permits the appellants three months to file a suit against the Wakf property declaration, preserving current property status during this period.
Issues: Whether the land is legally classified as Wakf property and implications for third-party rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court holds that mere classification by the Wakf Board does not infringe upon established ownership rights of individuals unless legally challenged.
Result: Writ appeal dismissed with an opportunity for the appellants to file an appropriate suit.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. landownership dispute regarding wakf classification. (Para 1) |
| 2. title arguments and notification challenges. (Para 2 , 6 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. court's prima facie findings on wakf status. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 9 , 13) |
| 4. notification binding constraints under wakf act. (Para 14 , 15 , 19) |
| 5. need for a suit to challenge wakf property classification. (Para 18 , 22) |
| 6. procedure and timeline for filing suit established. (Para 20 , 21 , 23) |
| 7. final order disposing writ appeal. (Para 24) |
Judgment:
(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
The appellants had purchased various plots in Sy.No.327 of Palamaner Village of Chittoor District and are said to have constructed their houses in the said land. Some of the appellants sought to dispose of their property and approached the Sub-Registrar, Palamaner for ascertaining market value, of the plots, for calculation of stamp duty and registration charges. The 5th respondent, by way of endorsements, refused to furnish this information on the ground that he had received a letter of the Wakf Board, dated 12.10.2012, stating that the land is Wakf Land and no registration can take place in relation to that land. The appellants challenged the endorsements given by the 5threspondent, as well as the letter of the Wakf Board, dated 12.10.2012, by way of W.P.No.30916 of 2014.
2. The appellants had taken the stand that the land in question is private land on which various houses have been constructed after obtaining due permission from the Municipality and that the title to the land could be traced back to a sale deed, dated 10.10.1946, which was prior to the Wakf Act of 1954 coming into force. The appellants further contended that the possession and enjoyment over this land, by private individuals, had never been challenged for more than 68 years and as such title to the land is perfected. The appellants also contended the very same proceedings, relating to another piece of land situated in Sy.No.963/3 had been challenged in W.P.No.12412 and 12875 of 2017 and the same was allowed by the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, by an order, dated 18.07.2013.
3. The Wakf Board, took the stand that the land to an extent of Ac.2.04 cents in Sy.No.327 of Palamaner Town was Inam Land granted under title No.1979 under Towliath of Syed Hyder Saheb for service for an Ashurkhana, maintenance of tombs and Peerla Makhan. Sri Syed Hyder Saheb, was only a Manager of the property and had no right to alienate the property. However, the family members of Sri Syed Hyder Saheb appear to have sold away the land and such deeds of sale would not, in any manner, give title to the purchasers. The Wakf Board also took the stand that even if there is a dispute as to whether the land is Wakf land, alternative remedies are available and a petition under Article 226 would not be maintainable.
4. The survey, that is said to have been held under the 1954 Wakf Act, is said to have reported that Ac.2.04 cents of land in Sy.No.327 was granted as Inam, by title deed No.1979, for the purpose of celebration of Moharram and Sri Syed Hyder Saheb was appointed as Muthawali to ensure the celebration of Moharam. The report also recorded that the land was in the middle of dwelling houses and is not cultivable due to which no revenue was being generated.
5. The learned Single Judge, after noticing that a gazette notification had also been issued, on 28.06.1962, classifying the land as Wakf land, had held that there was sufficient material for holding that the property is prima facie Wakf property. The learned Single Judge also made it clear that the discussion in the Judgment would not come in the way of ascertaining their title by due process of law. On this basis, the learned single judge, by a judgment, dated 20.02.2015, dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by this Judgment, the appellants have preferred the present Writ Appeal.
6. Sri N. Subba Rao, the learned Senior Coun
