Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The A.P.State Wakf Board vs Chenna Sudhakar on 25 July, 2022
Author: Prashant Kumar Mishra
Bench: Prashant Kumar Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU
WRIT APPEAL No.289 of 2022
(Through physical mode)
The A.P. State Waqf Board,
rep. by its Chief Executive Officer,
4th floor Imdad Ghar, Waqf Complex,
Opp. Kaleswara Rao Market,
Vijayawada, Krishna District.
.. Appellant
versus
Chenna Sudhakar S/o. late Chenna Munaiah,
Aged about 47 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o. D.No.9/12-B, Akshanthala Obayya Palli
H/o. Vallur Village, Vallur Mandal,
YSR District, and others.
.. Respondents
Counsel for the appellant : Mr. Shaik Karimulla
Counsel for respondents 1 & 2 : Mr. V.R. Reddy Kovvuri
Counsel for respondents 3 to 5 : GP for Revenue
Counsel for respondent No.6 : GP for Stamps & Registration
ORAL JUDGMENT
Dt: 25.07.2022 (per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ) This intra-court appeal has been directed against the order dated 29.09.2021 passed by a learned single Judge in W.P.No.2345 of 2021 preferred by respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein challenging the Notification bearing No.43-A dated 24.10.1963 issued by the Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board (appellant herein) notifying the land in an extent of Ac.8.20 cents in Sy.No.357 of Gotur Village fields, Valluru Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District, as wakf property, and the consequential action of the Sub-Registrar, (Rural) Y.S.R. Kadapa District in refusing to entertain the sale deeds presented in respect of the said land for registration. By the order under appeal, the 2 HCJ & DVSS,J W.A.No.289 of 2022 learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition with the following observations:
"For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the law laid down in the judgments referred to supra, the Notification bearing No.43-A dated 24.10.1963 to the extent of the subject lands, admeasuring Acs.8.20 cents in Sy.No.357 of Gotur Village Fields, Valluru Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District, stands set aside. However, this order will not preclude the respondents from initiating action in accordance with the Wakf Act, 1995, if they are so advised, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If no action is initiated within the time stipulated above, it is open for the petitioners herein to present the documents before the Registering Authorities for consideration of the said documents in accordance with law and subject to compliance of all other statutory procedure or requirements. Initiation of the action, if any, done within the time stipulated above, shall be communicated to the Registering Authority also."
2. In allowing the writ petition with the above observations, the leaned single Judge has followed the earlier decisions of this Court rendered in similar circumstances, particularly, the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.M. Ibrahim v. Chief Executive Officer, A.P. State Wakf Board, Hyderabad, reported in 2020 (4) ALD 433 (AP) (DB), wherein similar Notification issued by the Wakf Board has been set aside with the following observations at paragraph Nos.34 and 35:
"34. In view of our foregoing discussion, we find that the errata notification dated 26.4.2008 impugned in this writ petition is hereby set aside with a liberty to conduct necessary enquiry affording an opportunity to this petitioner before registering the property in Sy.No.18/1 of an extent of Acs.3.70 cents of Nagarajupalli Village as wakf by issuing notification and decide the
3 HCJ & DVSS,J W.A.No.289 of 2022 objections if any, raised by the petitioner, on receipt of notice during the enquiry.
35. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside the errata notification dated 26.4.2008 published in A.P Gazette No.20 Part-II, dated 15.5.2008, by declaring the same as illegal. However, liberty is granted o the Wakf Board i.e. respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, to conduct necessary enquiry under Section 4 of the Act, 1995 and take appropriate action under Section 5 of the Act if necessary, before registering the property in dispute as wakf and the observations made hereinabove with regard to the title to the property will have no bearing. The Enquiry Officer appointed under Section 4 of the Act, is directed to dispose of the objections, if any, filed by this petitioner, uninfluenced by the observations or findings if any, recorded hereinabove."
3. In another decision of a single Bench of this Court in B. Gowra Reddy (deceased by L.Rs.) and others v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, reported in AIR 2002 AP 313, another similar Notification issued by the Wakf Board has also been set aside on the ground that no notice was issued to the petitioners therein during the course of enquiry under Section 4 of the Wakf Act by the Survey Commissioner and, thus, the statutory requirement under the provisions of the said Act has not been complied with.
4. In course of hearing of this appeal, nothing has been brought to our notice to satisfy that the provisions contained in Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Wakf Act, 1995, have been complied with by the authorities before issuing the Notification impugned in the writ petition. Thus, the principle on the basis of which the decisions in B. Gowra Reddy (deceased by L.Rs.) and S.M. Ibrahim have been rendered would squarely apply in the present case also. In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the order under appeal passed by the learned single Judge following the earlier decisions on 4 HCJ & DVSS,J W.A.No.289 of 2022 the issue is absolutely justified and it does not warrant any interference in this intra-court appeal.
5. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. [ PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU, J IBL