Telangana High Court
Mohammed Nazeer, Died vs Gore Miyan, on 11 February, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 700 OF 2021
O R D E R:
This Revision is directed against the judgment and decree of the Telangana State Wakf Tribunal at Hyderabad in O.S.No. 92 of 2016 (old O.S.No. 138 of 2006) dated 26.03.2021.
2. Since, admittedly, there was interim order of status quo granted during pendency of suit, which subsisted till disposal of the suit, while admitting this Revision on 24.06.2021, this Court directed both the parties to maintain status quo as on date in all respects till disposal of the Revision.
3. Defendants in the suit are petitioners and plaintiffs are respondents herein. The suit was filed for grant of perpetual injunction restraining defendants 1 to 4 from interfering with possession and enjoyment of plaintiffs over part and parcel of Moula Ali Chilla in Survey No. 6/1 and its attached waqf land in Survey Nos. 21 and 22 admeasuring Acs.5.33 guntas situated at Chevella Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. For the sake of convenience, parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.
2
4. The case of plaintiffs is that there is a chilla 'Moula Ali' got attached to the suit land. It is stated that one Lal Mohammed of Chevella Village had six sons; out of them, the 1st plaintiff is only alive, other plaintiffs and defendants 1, 3 and 4 are grand-children or great grand-children of late Lal Mohammed. It is also stated, Lal Mohammed was acting as defacto-Mutawalli of the suit Chilla and rendering necessary services and after his death, the 1st plaintiff has been discharging the duties as such. It is stated, taking advantage of his old age, defendants 1 to 4, who are closely related to him and assisting in discharging the duties of Mutawalli, are trying to alienate the waqf property.
According to plaintiffs, in the pahani for 1960-61, the name of Dargah Hazrath Moula Ali is noted in Column Nos. 11 and 12 as Khatedar and pattadar, likewise in pahanis for 1987-88, 1990-91, but however, in the pahani for 1994-95, the names of two sons of late Jahangir viz. Mohd. Basheer and Mohd. Nazeer were shown as khatedars / pattadars in respect of suit land; again in 2000-01, pahani showed the names of defendants 1 to 4 and some others as khatedars/pattadars and 3 Survey Nos. 21 and 22 were divided into seven bits and defendants 1 to 4 started interfering with plaintiffs during cultivation operations though the suit land is in the joint possession and enjoyment of de facto Mutawallis and successors of Lal Mohammed.
Taking advantage of entry of their names in revenue records during the years stated supra, Defendants 1 to 4 have been trying to meddle with the property on which both plaintiffs and Defendants 1 to 4 have responsibility to protect.
5. On the other hand, Defendants 1 to 4 admitted the relationship between the parties, existence of Chilla Moula Ali in Survey No.6/1, but denied the same got attached with the suit land. It is stated, land covered by Survey Nos. 21 and 22 is two to three kilometres away from Chilla and late Mohd. Jahangir, father of the 1st defendant and grandfather of Defendants 3 and 4 was the original pattadar and possessor of the said land whose name was recorded in revenue records. After his demise, it is claimed, names of his two sons Mohd. Basheer and Mohd.Nazeer (the 1st defendant) were entered in revenue records. The 2nd defendant is the wife of Mohd. Basheer and 4 Defendants 3 and 4 are his sons. After the death of Mohd. Basheer in 1995, land was mutated in the names of Defendants 2 to 4, while the share of the 1st defendant remained intact. Thus, it is claimed, defendants 1 to 4 are absolute owners and possessors of the suit land. O.S.No. 141 of 2005 filed by one of the daughters of late Mohd. Jahangir in respect of suit land against Defendants 1 to 4 ended in compromise and final decree was passed on 29.09.2005 under which legal heirs of late Mohd. Jahangir stood entitled for each share of the suit land. Since 1994, names of Defendants 1 to 4 have been reflected in the revenue records even to the knowledge of plaintiffs.
6. The case of the 6th respondent Waqf Board is that the property is a registered and notified waqf property.
7. In the order under Revision, it is observed that Ex.B12 is certified copy of the Chesala Pahani for 1955-58, wherein Dargah Hzt. Moula Ali was shown in column No.11 and in Column 12 it is mentioned as 'patta' for both Survey Nos.21 and 22. In Ex.B13 and Ex.B14 also similar entries were made confirming that Dargah Hazrath Mouila Ali is the pattadar of the suit land, thus all the revenue records which are issued by the 5 revenue authorities including Exs.A1 to A3 and Exs.B12 to B14 clinchingly establish that suit land is in possession of plaintiffs as the defacto mutawallis and the suit land is waqf property. Nothing was elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.1 or D.W.2 to discard or disbelieve their evidence which is fully supported by the documents referred to above.
It is further observed that Ex.B1 to B4 are the pattadar passbooks issued in the name of defendants 1 to 4 in respect of Survey Nos. 21 and 22 with different extents. In the remarks column in Exs.B1 toB4, proceedings number is mentioned. These documents would show that they are of recent origin issued in 1995 or thereafter. Exs.B5 to B9 are the certified copes of pahanis for 1995-96, 1995-96, 1996-97, 1996- 97 and 1997-98 respectively; the names of either defendants 1 to 4 or defendant No.1 and Basheer husband of defendant No.2 are mentioned in respect of Survey Nos. 21 and 22 with sub- division numbers. The basis for the said extents of land is not explained by them. However, in the present case, patta in the name of subject Dargah is proved with authentic documents like Exs.A1 to A3, A6 andA7 and also Exs.B12 to B14. Ex.A6 is 6 not set aside so far. It appears that only Revenue Inspector issued Ex.B10, which is the proceedings issued by the Recording Authority, Chevella. Much credit cannot be attached to this document as it was not even issued by the Tahsildar, Mandal Revenue Officer. Apart from that the oldest document Ex.A1 pahani for 1960-61 exhibited by plaintiffs shows that Dargah Hzt. Moula Ali is the pattadar of the suit land. Ex.B10 does not disclose that any notice was served on either the Waqf Board or the plaintiffs herein acting as defacto -Mutawallis of the Dargah. In para 2 of Ex.B10 though it is mentioned that the matter has been enquired in the village and no objections were received, the details of those enquiry are not disclosed in Ex.B10. When the suit land is in the name of the subject Dargah, the officer passing Ex.B10 proceidngs without giving any opportunity to the affected persons, basing on the mere application of one Mohd. Basheer, as mentioned in the reference, passed Ex.B10 proceedings which is not valid.
The Court below after thoroughly going through the evidence, both oral and documentary, finally held that plaintiffs apart from establishing the fact that they are in lawful 7 possession of suit lands by performing the duties of defacto - Mutawalli of suit land and Defendants 1 to 4 tried to interfere with their possession, also established that suit land is waqf property. It was further held that all the documents produced by Defendants 1 to 4 pertain to 1995 or 1996 or thereafter only which do not prove their right or possession over the suit land.
8. Heard Sri Dontineni Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for petitioners Farah Azam Khan, learned Standing Counsel for Waqf Board and Sri P. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Ms. Krishna Keerthana. The 2nd respondent was deleted from the array of parties as per the order dated 14.12.2021.
9. From a perusal of the order impugned, having heard learned counsel on either side, it is evident that the oral evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Exs.A1 to A3 and A6 to A7, certified copies of pahanis for the years 1960-61, 1987-88, 1990-91, Gazette dated 16.02.1989 and Survey Commissioner's report, which are authentic documents, go to show that the subject Dargah Chilla is pattadar and plaintiffs are Mutawallis of suit land. It is settled principle that once a waqf property is 8 always a waqf property. Further, the evidence of D.W.2 Shaik Noor Saheb, Inspector Auditor working under the Waqf Board which discloses that there is a waqf institution Chilla Mouila Ali in Survey No.6/1 and it is a notified waqf having agricultural land in Survey Nos. 21 and 22 admeasuring Acs.5.33 guntas attached to it. This witness also claims that Defendants 1 to 4 obtained pattadar passbooks in respect of suit land without the knowledge of the Waqf Board. On the other hand, defendants relied on Exs.B1 to B4 - pattadar pass books in the name of Defendants 1 to 4, however, the said documents show that they are of recent origin issued in 1995 or thereafter. Es.B5 to B9 are certified copies of pahanis for 1995-96,1996-97, 1997-98 respectively wherein the names of either Defendants 1 to 4 or the 1st defendant and Mohd. Basheer, husband of the 2nd defendant was mentioned. However, as could be seen from Exs.A1 to A3, A7, as noted supra, and Exs.B12 to B14, certified copies of Chesla Pahani for the years 1955 to 1958, pahanis for 1972-73 and 1973-74, the name of Dargah is proved with authentic documents. Though D.W.1, in his cross-examination, stated that in 1980, the government issued patta to his father 9 Mohd. Jahangir, no such document was produced before the Tribunal or this Court. Not only that, defendants in their written statement took the plea that one of the daughters of Jahangir filed O.S.No. 141 of 2005 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Chevella which ended in compromise and a final decree was passed therein, they did not produce the same before the Tribunal to prove their bona fides.
10. The evidence of P.W.1 also made it clear that one Krishna Reddy and another person were negotiating with Defendants 1, 3 and 4 for the sale of suit land unlawfully. All these aspects would go to show that Defendants 1 to 4 are trying to interfere with the waqf property which is in possession of plaintiffs who have been performing the duties of defacto - Mutawallis.
11. In the light of the same, particularly in the light of the fact that the documents produced by Defendants 1 to 4 pertain to 1995 or 1996 or thereafter, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Tribunal has rightly decreed the suit holding that plaintiffs could establish their claim over the suit 10 land. There are no grounds much less valid grounds to take a contra view. The Revision is therefore, liable to be dismissed.
12. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
13. Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.
-------------------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 11th February 2025 ksld