Telangana High Court
Syed Shah Mohammed Ibrahim Quadri vs The State Of Telangana on 8 April, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
WRIT PETITION No.32244 of 2023
ORDER:
1. Heard Sri B.Mayur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration and the learned Standing Counsel for Wakf Board, appearing for the respondents.
2. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that in this writ petition the petitioner is questioning the letter issued by the respondent No.5 in Letter F.No.S-28/Govt/2020 dated 21.02.2023, directing the respondent No.3 not to entertain any transactions in respect of the number of properties including the properties of the petitioner premises bearing Nos. 22-5-29, 22-5-30, 22-5-36, 22-5-38, 22-5-24 to 22-5-26, 22-5-44/1, 22-5-45, 22-5-253, 22-5-32 to 22-5-34, 22-5- 39 to 22-5-42, situated at Charminar, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred as 'subject properties' ) without there ::2::
being any valid Notification Under Section 22-A of the Registration Act and requested to direct the respondents to remove the subject properties from the prohibition list.
3. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the subject properties of this writ petition are the subject matter in O.S.No.989 of 1973 and O.S.No.73 of 1974 on the file of IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and the respondent No.5 herein is also one of the defendant in the said suits. The subject properties were shown as 'A-Schedule properties' in the said suits and declared that the schedule properties not belongs to Wakf property.
4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also submits that the respondent No.5 issued Notification, which was published on 14.06.1984 in A.P.Gazettee, Supplement to Part-II, wherein the subject properties herein were shown as Wakf properties. Challenging the same, Sakeena Begum, who was the plaintiff in ::3::
O.S.No.73 of 1974 filed W.P.No.2719 of 1996 and the said Writ Petition was allowed on 30.11.2001 declaring the said Gazette Notification dated 14.06.1984 issued by the respondent No.5 as contrary to the Decree made in O.S.No.73 of 1974 on the file of IX Assistant Judge, Civil Court, Hyderabad and declared that the plaint-A schedule properties therein, which are the subject properties herein, as Mathruka property'. Aggrieved by the said Order, the respondent-Wakf Board filed appeal vide W.A.No.1974 of 2003 and the Division Bench of this Court after hearing both sides, dismissed the said Writ Appeal on 20.11.2003 and thereby the declaration of the schedule properties as not belong to Wakf property and they are the Matruka property has attained its finality.
5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that when the petitioner approached the respondent No.4 on 04.10.2023 for execution and registration of lease deeds in respect of the subject ::4::
properties, the respondent No.4 refused to register the same stating that the subject properties are under Prohibited list. The said action of the respondent No.4 is contrary to the Judgment and Decree passed by the competent Civil Court in O.S.No.73 of 1974. Further the impugned letter issued by the respondent No.5 in F.No.S-28/Govt./2020 dated 21.02.2023 is contrary to the Orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.2719 of 1996, dated 30.10.2001 and also W.A.No.1974 of 2003, dated 20.11.2003 and requested to set aside the impugned letter in F.No.S-28/Govt./2020 dated 21.02.2023 and consequential orders, in so far as the subject properties of the petitioner is concerned and requested to allow the writ petition.
6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration would submit that the respondent No.4 has rightly rejected the request of the petitioner for registration of the lease deeds basing on the ::5::
letter addressed by the respondent No.5, wherein the respondent No.4 was directed not to entertain any kind of transactions in respect of the subject priorities. He further submits that until and unless the impugned letter dated 21.02.2023 issued by the respondent No.5 is set aside, the respondent No.4 cannot register the documents presented by the petitioner and requested to dismiss the writ petition.
7. The learned Standing Counsel for Wakf Board, basing on the counter filed by the respondent No.5 would submit that to safeguard the Wakf properties from the encroachers and land grabbers, the respondent No.5 had addressed letter to the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration and also the respondent No.3 with a request to issue necessary instructions to all the Sub-Registrars in Telangana State not to entertain any kind of transactions in respect of the properties shown in the Prohibition list by putting them under 'Auto Lock' ::6::
disabling the online registration module of such properties.
8. The learned Standing Counsel would further submit that, Section 54 of the Transfer Property of Act, 1882 read with Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 conclusively mandates for registration of deed of an immovable property for its enforcement. The Registration of Deed having recitals for transfer of right, title and interest in favour of recipient along with recitals of considerations give inference of presumption of title. The execution of lease deed itself is under cloud, then the registration itself cannot be held as proof of execution and compliance under Section 67 of the Evidence Act is necessary.
9. The learned Standing Counsel would further submit that the primary contention of the petitioner that the Wakf property, which is the subject property of the instant writ petition, had been alienated by the legal heirs of the ::7::
Inamdars or by the then Mutawalli or their agents or assignees is irrelevant and it was done in contravention of the Wakf Act 1995/1954 being void ab initio. The petitioner cannot circumvent the law on the basis of some previous transactions that had taken place and the contention of the petitioner that he is the legal owner of subject properties is untenable. The Mutawalli cannot be the owner of the subject Wakf lands. The Mutawalli is the custodian and caretaker of the Wakf properties being the Manager for the time being only. The petitioner has sought for perpetuation of illegality, contrary to the settled principles of law and that being the absence of any right, whatsoever grant lease of the Wakf properties is not maintainable and there are no merits and requested to dismiss the writ petition.
10. After hearing both sides and perusing the record, this Court is of the considered view that, the subject properties i.e. Nos.22-5-29, 22-5-30, 22-5-36, 22-5-38, ::8::
22-5-24 to 22-5-26, 22-5-44/1, 22-5-45, 22-5-253, 22-5-32 to 22-5-34, 22-5-39 to 22-5-42, situated at Charminar, Hyderabad were shown as 'A' schedule properties in O.S.Nos.989 of 1973 and O.S.No.73 of 1974 on the file of IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and in the said suit, the A.P.Wakf Board was the defendant No.2. After conducting trial and marking documents as exhibits, the Civil Court declared that the Plaint-A schedule properties i.e. the subject properties in the instant writ petition are 'Mathruka property' and further declared that they are not Wakf properties.
11. Further, one Ms.Sakeea Begum, the plaintiff in O.S.No.73 of 1974 filed W.P.No.2719 of 1996 questioning the Gazette Notification, Supplement to Part-II-, 23-A, dated 14.06.1984 under Sl.No.1297 at Page No.20 declaring the subject properties as Wakf Properties and the learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the said writ petition by its order dated 30.11.2001, wherein it was ::9::
held that the said Notification dated 14.06.1984 is contrary to the decree made in O.S.No.73 of 1974 in so far as the subject properties are concerned and declared as Mathruka property. Aggrieved by the said orders, the respondent No.5 herein, filed W.A.No.1974 of 2003 and the Division Bench of this Court dismissed the said Writ Appeal vide its order dated 20.11.2003. The Division Bench of this Court in the said Writ Appeal held that the Single Judge was justified in holding that the Notification under Section 5 of the Wakf Act, 1954 cannot be issued by the Wakf Board subsequent to passing of a decree by the Civil Court which decision taken by competent Civil Court at the relevant time, was affirmed in the appeal. The Judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the said Writ Appeal has attained its finality. In view of the same, now the respondents cannot issue the impugned list including the subject properties for prohibition under Section 22-A (1)C of the Registration Act, 1908.
::10::
12. In the counter filed by the respondent No.5, nowhere denied about the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.2719 of 1996 dated 30.11.2001 and dismissal of W.A.No.1974 of 2003 dated 20.11.2003. Once this Court set aside the Gazette Notification Supplement, Part-II, dated 14.06.1984 in so far as the subject properties are concerned and declared that the same not belongs to Wakf property and it is Mathruka property, which was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1974 of 2003, the respondent authorities cannot address impugned letter including the subject properties in the prohibited list once again and the said action is arbitrary, illegal and liable to be set aside on the ground that the same is contrary to the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.2719 of 1996 dated 30.10.2001 and W.A.No.1974 of 2003 dated 20.11.2003.
13. The other contentions raised by the respondent No.5 cannot be taken into account as the issue was already ::11::
settled in the earlier proceedings by the competent Civil Court as well as this Court wherein it was held that the subject properties not belongs to Wakf property and it belongs to Mathruka property.
14. In view of the above findings, this Writ Petition is disposed of by setting aside the impugned Prohibition letter issued by the respondent No.5 in F.No.S-28/Govt./2020 dated 21.02.2023 and consequential letter in Memo No.G3/621/2021 dated 26.05.2023 issued by the respondent No.3 in so far as the suit schedule properties of the petitioner is concerned i.e. Nos.22-5-29, 22-5-30, 22-5-36, 22-5-38, 22-5-24 to 22-5-26, 22-5-44/1, 22-5-45, 22-5-253, 22-5-32 to 22-5-
34, 22-5-39 to 22-5-42, situated at Charminar, Hyderabad and the Registering Authority is directed to receive, register and release the documents presented by the petitioner for the suit schedule properties, subject to the petitioner complying with the provisions of the Indian ::12::
Registration Act, 1908 and Indian Stamps Act, 1899 and otherwise in order.
15. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.
____________________ JUSTICE K.SARATH Dated:08.04.2025 trr