A notification issued under a repealed statute, where no provision saving such action exists in the new legislation, is invalid; additionally, any declaration of wakf property requires strictly mandatory procedural compliance, including preliminary surveys and notice to interested parties.

Headnote:(A) Wakf Act, 1954 - Sections 4 and 5 - Wakf Act, 1995 - Section 112 - Impugned notification dated 24.01.2002 issued under the repealed 1954 Act - Since the 1954 Act stood repealed by the 1995 Act, and the repealing Act did not save the procedure invoked, the notification is invalid as it was issued seven years after the repeal. (Paras 35-37, 40)

(B) Principles of Natural Justice - Mandatory procedure for notification - Failure to conduct preliminary survey and provide notice to persons in possession before identifying property as wakf renders the notification arbitrary and non-compliant with statutory requirements. (Paras 41-43)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged a gazette notification dated 24.01.2002 which declared their land as wakf property. The petitioners were the title holders of agricultural lands in various survey numbers in Kodangal Village, having acquired these lands under the Inams Act with issued Occupancy Rights Certificates (ORC). The respondents claimed the land was wakf property based on the gazette notification issued under the repealed 1954 Act.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the notification issued under the 1954 Act long after its repeal was invalid. Furthermore, the mandatory procedural requirements, including conducting a survey and providing notice, were not complied with.

Issues: Whether a notification issued under a repealed statute is valid, and whether the procedural requirements of conducting a survey and notice were satisfied.

Ratio Decidendi: A notification issued after the repeal of an Act without specific savings is void, as the repeal obliterates the statute from existence except for past and closed transactions. Moreover, conducting a preliminary survey and notice prior to declaring property as wakf is a mandatory condition.

Result: The writ petitions and revision petition were allowed and the notification was set aside.

Table of Content
1. repealed statutes cannot remain in force unless specifically saved by new law. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 48 , 51)
2. failure to conduct mandatory preliminary survey and notice voids gazette notification. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45)

COMMEON ORDER:

1.Since the issue involved in both the Writ Petitions is one and the same and the issue involved in the Civil Revision Petition is also integrally connected to the issue under consideration in the Writ Petitions, all the three cases, viz., WPs and CRP, are being disposed of by this common ordeR.

W.P.No.20922 of 2009

2. The petitioner claims of he having purchased land to an extent of Acs.3.08 guntas in Sy.No.797/A, an extent of Ac.1.07 guntas in Sy.No.797/AA, in all admeasuring Acs.4.15 guntas, from its original owners, Sri Raza Ali Shah S/o Maroof Ali Shah and Farath Ali Shah s/o Maroof Ali Shah, under a registered sale deed dt.09.01.2001 for valuable consideration and on purchase of the aforesaid land, the same was mutated on to his name in revenue records; and that he was also issued with pattadar pass book and title deeds by the concerned authorities.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that thereafter, he had sold land to an extent of Ac.1.15 guntas back to his vendors through a registered sale deed and is in possession of land to an extent of Acs.3.00 guntas; that the petitioner’s vendors were owners and occupiers of land which is a Inam land covered under Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Inams Act’); that the petitioner’s vendors were granted Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) by the competent authority, vide proceedings dt.17.07.1999 under the relevant provisions of the Inams Act, after conducting enquiry; and that there is no dispute with regard to nature of the land and rights of the petitioner’s vendors over the land.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that having purchased the land initially to an extent of Acs.4.15 guntas and thereafter, having sold away land to an extent of Ac.1.15 guntas, is in possession of the remaining extent of land to an extent of Acs.3.00 guntas; and that pursuant to the notification issued by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) for opening of a retail petroleum outlet at Kodangal Town and Village, he had applied for the dealership; and that the petitioner’s application was accepted, and letter of intent was issued by BPCL, vide its letter dt.28.03.2008.

5. It is the further case of the petitioner that on BPCL issuing letter of intent, he had approached the concerned authorities, i.e. Revenue Divisional Officer, Narayanpet (RDO), and the concerned police authorities and obtained No Objection Certificate (NOC) for establishing a petroleum retail; that after obtaining necessary permissions/sanctions from the authorities concerned for setting up of retail petroleum outlet and also having applied for conversion of the said land from agriculture to non-agriculture, on the petitioner undertaking steps to clean the area for the purpose of setting up of petrol pump, some persons styling themselves as Members of local Masjid Committee are trying to interfere with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the land admeasuring Acs.3.00 guntas by claiming that the property belongs to Wakf Board; that on the third parties creating obstacles, the petitioner had approached the competent Court of Civil jurisdiction by filing a suit for injunction, vide O.S.No.20 of 2009, and obtained ad interim injunction in I.A.No.188 of 2009 in O.S.No.20 of 2009; and that the said order of injunction is subsisting as of date.

6. It is the further case of the petitioner that on his peaceful possession and enjoyment being obstructed by the persons styling themselves as Members of the local Masjid Committee and also having regard to the stand of the Wakf Board in the suit, vide O.S.No.20 of 2009, he made enquiries and learnt that the 2nd respondent herein had notified the land

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 74386

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABADT. Vinod Kumar, JPunnam Chand Lahoti – AppellantVersusTelangana State Wakf Board – RespondentW.P.Nos.20922 of 2009 | 30132 of 2010 | C.R.P.No.4191 of 2010

A notification issued under a repealed statute, where no provision saving such action exists in the new legislation, is invalid; additionally, any declaration of wakf property requires strictly mandatory procedural compliance, including preliminary surveys and notice to interested parties.

Cases Referred (2)

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
T. Vinod Kumar, J
Punnam Chand Lahoti – Appellant
Versus
Telangana State Wakf Board – Respondent
W.P.Nos.20922 of 2009 | 30132 of 2010 | C.R.P.No.4191 of 2010