1. Challenge to Wakf Board Gazette Notification under Wakf Act, seeking declaration as void for violating natural justice and statutory provisions. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 16108
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
T. Madhavi Devi, J
Clean City Estates Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2022 | WRIT PETITION No.6898 OF 2015
A Gazette Notification under the Wakf Act, 1954, is illegal and void if issued without a mandatory enquiry under Section 4 and proper notice to affected parties, making it challengeable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:(A) Wakf Act, 1954 - Sections 4, 6, and 83 - Gazette Notification - Validity of notification without proper enquiry and notice to affected parties - A Gazette Notification issued under Section 6 without conducting a proper enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 is illegal and arbitrary (Para 3). The pre-requisite for publishing the Wakf list is an enquiry to be conducted under Section 4, and the report must be forwarded to the State Government and then to the Wakf Board for examination before publication in the Official Gazette (Para 26). Where such statutory obligations are not fulfilled, the notification is not binding on the affected parties and can be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (Para 26).
(B) Order 1 Rule 10 (CPC) - Impleadment of parties - Claimants must establish a prima facie right, title, or interest in the subject property to be impleaded as necessary or proper parties (Paras 13, 19).
(C) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 - Section 4 read with Section 10 - Occupancy Rights Certificate - If an Occupancy Rights Certificate has been issued following due procedure and not challenged or cancelled, it serves as evidence of possession and occupancy (Para 27).
Facts of the case:
Petitioners sought a Writ of Mandamus to declare a Gazette Notification as illegal and void, claiming they purchased agricultural land through registered sale deeds and have been in continuous possession. The respondents alleged the land was Wakf property based on a 1989 notification. Intervening parties sought impleadment, claiming to be legal heirs of original owners or Mutavali of the property. The petitioners relied on registered sale deeds and an Occupancy Rights Certificate, while the implead petitioners failed to produce documents establishing their rights.
Findings of Court:
(i) The implead petitions were dismissed as the applicants failed to establish any prima facie right, title, or interest in the property. (ii) The Gazette Notification dated 09.02.1989 was held to be without jurisdiction and set aside, as no evidence was provided to show that a proper enquiry was conducted or notices were served to the pattadars at the time of survey.
Issues: The primary issues were whether the Gazette Notification was valid despite the lack of a proper enquiry and notice under the Wakf Act, and whether the applicants in the implead petitions were necessary or proper parties to the litigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the statutory requirement of conducting an enquiry under Section 4 of the Wakf Act is a mandatory pre-requisite for the publication of a notification under Section 6. In the absence of notice to affected parties and a proper enquiry, such a notification is arbitrary and non-binding. Furthermore, since the Occupancy Rights Certificate issued to the petitioner had not been challenged, it reinforced the petitioner's claim of occupancy.
Result: I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2022 are dismissed and W.P.No.6898 of 2015 is allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
- property law
- statutory interpretation
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners assert title via sale deeds; Board contends property is notified Wakf, survey was valid, and delay bars challenge. (Para 3 , 4 , 25 , 26 )
3. No notice or proper enquiry conducted under Section 4 of Wakf Act before 1989 notification; revenue records show private ownership. (Para 21 , 24 , 26 , 27 )
4. Gazette notification under Wakf Act without mandatory notice and enquiry under Section 4 is illegal and not binding on affected parties. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 )
5. Notification set aside; Writ Petition allowed; implead applications dismissed with liberty to avail alternate remedy. (Para 28 )
6. Is a Gazette Notification under Section 6 of the Wakf Act valid without prior enquiry under Section 4?
No; proper enquiry under Section 4 with notice to affected parties is a mandatory prerequisite; non-compliance renders the notification illegal and unenforceable. (Para 21 , 26 , 27 )
7. Can the validity of a Wakf notification be challenged under Article 226 when statutory enquiry was lacking?
Yes; where principal requirement of notice and enquiry is absent, driving parties to the Wakf Tribunal would serve no purpose, and writ jurisdiction is maintainable. (Para 26 )
8. Does an inordinate delay between survey and publication of the Gazette Notification invalidate the notification?
Yes; a survey conducted decades earlier cannot form the basis for a notification published much later, especially when legislative and administrative changes have occurred. (Para 26 )
9. What is the effect of a prior registered sale deed on a later Wakf Gazette Notification?
A registered sale deed executed before the notification may confer superior rights if the notification is invalid, as it raises a presumption of valid title and possession. (Para 21 )
10. Can third parties claiming to be legal heirs be impleaded in a writ challenging a Wakf notification without establishing prima facie right?
No; impleadment requires substantiation of right, title, or interest in the property; mere claims without documentary proof are insufficient. (Para 13 , 19 )
COMMON ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the Gazette Notification published by the Wakf Board in A.P.Gazette No.6A dated 09.02.1989, at Sl. No.3228, with respect to the land admeasuring Ac. 0-22.04 Guntas and 801 Sq.Yards in Sy.Nos.166 and 166 Paiki, situated at Ibrahimbagh Village, Golconda Mandal, Hyderabad District, and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom, as illegal, arbitrary, void, and violative of the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the A.P.Wakf Act, 1954, and consequently to set aside the same and to pass such other order or orders.
2.1 Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition are that the petitioners are engaged in the business of Real Estate and Infrastructure and petitioner No.1-company is represented by petitioner No.2. It is stated that petitioner No.1-company purchased agricultural land admeasuring Ac.0-22.04 guntas or 2668 square yards, out of Ac.0.35 guntas in Sy.No.166, situated at Ibrahimbagh Village, Golconda Mandal, Hyderabad District, vide registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.2107 of 2008, dated 20.02.2008, from one Mrs.P.Shakuntala and Mr. P. Manik Rao, who are the legal heirs of late Babu Seth, along with Mr. Abdul Saleem Khan, Mr. Abdul Malik Khan, Mr. Mohd. Ziauddin, Mr. Shaik Azher Parvez, Mr. Abdul Khaleel Khan, Mr. Abdul Qayyum Khan, Mohammad Ghulam Haqqanni and Mohammad Ghulam Subhani, as consenting parties, for valid consideration. It is stated that thereafter, petitioner No.1 has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said property.
2.2 Petitioner No.2 claims to have purchased agricultural land admeasuring 801 square yards in Sy.Nos.166 and 166 Paiki, out of an extent of Ac.0-12.6 guntas, situated at Ibrahimbagh Village, Golconda Mandal, Hyderabad District, vide a registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.4564 of 2012 dated 15.11.2012, from Mrs. P. Shakuntala and others, who are the legal heirs of late Babu Seth, for valid consideration and has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said property ever since.
2.3 The brief history of the title of the subject property is explained thus:
(i) One Mr. Syed Kaleem Pasha is the original owner and possessor of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.0.35 guntas in Sy.Nos.166 and 166 Paiki, with an assessment of 20.88 double crop wet land under a Tank, situated at Ibrahimbagh Village Urban Taluk, Hyderabad District. He transferred the said property in favour of one Mr. P. Babu Seth S/o. P.Rangaiah vide Registered Sale Deed bearing No.378 of 1971 dated 24.02.1971, pursuant to which the said P.Babu Seth became the absolute owner of the subject land.
(ii) It is further submitted that earlier Mr. Manik Rao, the legal heir of Mr.P.Babu Seth, made a representation to the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Golconda Mandal, stating that some third parties were trying to change the ownership of the land admeasuring Ac.0.35 guntas in Sy.Nos.166 and 166 Paiki, of Ibrahimbagh Village and in response thereto, the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Golconda Mandal, addressed a letter bearing No.D/366/2005, dated 29.04.2005, to respondent No.2, stating that Mr. P. Manik Rao, S/o.Late P. Babu Rao, had represented that his father had purchased the said land in the year 1971 from Syed Kaleem Pasha S/o. Syed Rasool, and had been in continuous possession and enjoyment thereof since then, and requested to take appropriate action.
(iii) It is also stated that, in the Revenue Records, i.e., Pahani of Ibrahimbagh Village, the name of Syed Kaleem Pasha was reflected in the pattadar column while the name of Mr. P. Babu Seth was shown in the possession column in respect of Sy.No.166 for the period from 1955-58 to 1980-81 and vide letter dated 29.04.2005, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Golconda Mandal, requested respondent No.2 to take appropriate action against the third parties for trying to change the ownership of the land and to do justice to the original owners, but respondent
