The court set aside the Tribunal's order as it failed to properly consider evidence, framed issues without opportunity for the petitioner, and ignored that previous civil court orders had not been challenged. The impugned proceedings were also inconsistent and not supported by evidence.

ORDER:

1. The present Civil Revision Petition arises out of the order passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Waqf Tribunal in OS.No.45 of 2005, whereby the claim of the petitioner was rejected. The petitioner challenged the issuance of proceedings No.63/PROT/ATP/97, dated 05.02.2005, under Section 54(3) of the Waqf Act, 1995.

2. The Waqf Tribunal vide the impugned proceedings dated 05.02.2005 declared the petitioner to be in illegal possession of the Waqf properties to an extent of Ac.13.09 cents in RS.No.232 and called upon the petitioner to remove the encroachments and deliver vacant possession of the land to the Waqf Board within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the order.

3. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner filed OS.No.45 of 2005, which was dismissed on 01.09.2016. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the judgment of the Tribunal has not considered any of the issues raised by the petitioner and has been carried away by the submissions of the respondents. It is submitted that the title of the petitioner can be traced to 1830. It is submitted that the property was gifted by Amin Bibi in favour of her daughter vide a registered gift deed dated 08.10.1830.

4. It is submitted that the grandfather of the petitioner executed a registered lease deed dated 20.10.1987 in favour of Siddappa, S/o.Jaleti Appa and Jaleti Appa, S/o.Siddappa. It is submitted that the Commissioner of Survey of Waqfs issued a publication in AP Gazette on 28.06.1962 alleging the entire property admeasuring Ac.. 13.55 cents as a Waqf property belonging to the Bada Ashor Khana building, Raidurg. The name of the Muthavali was mentioned as Rahim Khan, S/o.Lathif Khan and three brothers. A subsequent amendment to the AP Gazettee Notification dated 28.06.1962 was published on 11.07.1968.

5. It is submitted that the petitioner’s paternal brother got issued a legal notice to the Waqf Board on 27.06.1968 and filed OS.No.92 of 1968 on the file of District Munsif, Raidurg for declaration. The said suit was decreed on 12.02.1976, and the decree and judgment became final. It is submitted that once the notifications of the Waqf Board were set aside, the Waqf Board cannot place reliance on the said notifications for claiming any title.

6. It is submitted that the plaintiff is a descendant of Davod Khan and a paternal cousin brother of Rahim Khan, who filed suit OS.No.92 of 1968. It is submitted that the suit filed by the paternal brother of the petitioner herein was decreed, and the petitioner and their family have perfected title over the same by adverse possession as well. It is submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not considering the same. It is submitted that the petitioner filed WP.No.3350 of 2001 challenging the appointment of the 2nd respondent as Muthavali of the Mosque. The writ petition was dismissed, and the WA.No.648 of 2005 was filed by the petitioner. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court disposed of the writ appeal, directing the appellant to approach the Tribunal. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal has discarded the judgment and decree passed in OS.No.92 of 1968, dated 12.02.1976, on the ground that the decree is an ex-parte decree. It is also submitted that OS.No.3 of 1981, filed by R.G.Sher Khan and M.Basheer Ahmad against the petitioner’s paternal brother, the Waqf Board, and Hussain Khan, was dismissed on 11.10.1992. The suit was filed seeking the relief of removing the 1st defendant from the office of Managership of Pedda Masjid as he is mismanaging the affairs of the Mosque. The learned Judge, while dismissing the suit, had held that the subject property was private property and the 1st defendant had asserted title over the same. It is submitted that the said judgment attained finality.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also submits that the Tribunal has considered the order passed by this Court in WP.No.407 of 1968, whereby the petitioner therein