Telangana High Court
Gaddam Anil Reddy vs The State Of Telangana And 8 Others on 5 June, 2023
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT APPEAL No.465 OF 2022
JUDGMENT:(Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan) Heard Mr. P.Venu Gopal, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant; Mr. T.Srikanth Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5; Mr. Abu Akram, learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 and 7; and Mr. P.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.8 and 9.
2. This writ appeal is directed against order dated 20.04.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing writ petition No.17900 of 2022. 2.1 It may be mentioned that appellant as the petitioner had filed the related writ petition assailing the action of the fifth respondent i.e., Station House Officer, Gachibowli Police Station in Cyberabad District in interfering with the possession of the petitioner in respect of land admeasuring Acs.5.01 guntas in survey No.80, Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy 2 District. Appellant further sought for a direction to the respondents, more particularly the fifth respondent not to interfere with his possession over the said land.
3. Case of the appellant as pleaded in the writ affidavit is that a wakf institution called Dargah Hazarath Salar-e- Haulia represented by Mutavalli Sultan Ahsan-ud-Dowla situated at survey No.80, Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District having land admeasuring Acs.140.00 is registered as per Muntakab dated 13.12.2013 and notified in the Telangana gazette dated 01.04.2014. Out of the aforesaid Acs.140.00 of land, land admeasuring Acs.5.01 guntas was leased out to the appellant from 2015 onwards by various lease deeds. As per the last lease deed dated 12.10.2021, the lease period was extended from 12.10.2021 to 11.09.2022.
4. Appellant has stated that he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said extent of land admeasuring Acs.5.01 guntas situated at survey No.80, 3 Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (subject land) since the year 2015.
5. Mutavalli of the Dargah had represented before concerned revenue authorities on 24.07.2015 to demarcate and survey Acs.140.00 of land of the said Dargah. Since no decision was taken on such representation, Mutavalli filed writ petition No.34686 of 2016 before this Court. This Court by order dated 26.10.2016 had directed the revenue authorities to consider the representation of the Mutavalli and survey the said land within four weeks.
6. Mandal Surveyor had informed the Deputy Collector on 24.08.2017 that the survey was completed. Deputy Collector vide letter dated 17.11.2018 informed the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District that the entire extent of Acs.140.00 of land belonging to the Dargah is situated at survey No.80, Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and that survey as well as demarcation of the same had been completed.
4
7. From this, it was contended by the appellant that the subject land leased out to the appellant from the larger extent of Acs.140.00 belonging to the Dargah is also situated within survey No.80, Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District within the jurisdiction of Miyapur Police Station and not within the jurisdiction of Gachibowli Police Station.
8. Mutavalli of the Dargah had filed writ petition No.44578 of 2018 before this Court questioning the action of the Miyapur Police Station in interfering with the ownership of the Dargah over the entire extent of land admeasuring Acs.140.00. This Court on 24.12.2018 had recorded the statement of Sub Inspector, Miyapur Police Station that police were not interfering with the ownership and possession of the Dargah over the land to the extent of Acs.140.00. The writ petition was closed by this Court by directing that police authorities of Miyapur Police Station shall not interfere with any civil dispute unless permissible in law.
5
9. Appellant alleged that certain third parties which subsequently got impleaded as respondent Nos.8 and 9 tried to interfere with the possession of the appellant over the subject land on the ground that the subject land is within survey Nos.86 and 87 of Kondapur Village. When this was brought to the notice of the wakf authorities, respondent No.7 i.e., Inspector Auditor, Wakfs, lodged first information before the Miyapur Police Station on 11.02.2022 alleging trespass into the Dargah land by the accused persons by bringing in unnumbered JCBs into the land of the appellant including respondent Nos.8 and
9. The same was registered as F.I.R.No.185 of 2022 under Sections 447 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) read with Section 34 thereof and Section 52A of the Wakf Act, 1995.
10. However, on 03.04.2022 and 04.04.2022, the fifth respondent tried to trespass into the land of the appellant and interfere with his possession and enjoyment over the same. When this was objected to by the appellant, the fifth respondent had informed him that the appellant's 6 leased premises admeasuring Acs.5.01 guntas fell in survey Nos.86 and 87 of Kondapur Village and therefore, was within the jurisdiction of Gachibowli Police Station. As such, he was investigating the same. Petitioner explained to the fifth respondent that survey over the entire land was carried out by the revenue authorities pursuant to order of this Court dated 26.10.2016 in writ petition No.34686 of 2016. Whereafter, as per report of the Mandal Surveyor dated 24.08.2017, the entire extent of Acs.140.00 of land is situated within survey No.80 of Hafeezpet Village which obviously included the land admeasuring Acs.5.01 guntas leased out by the Dargah to the appellant. Appellant had also informed the fifth respondent that he had filed O.S.No.15 of 2022 before the Telangana Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad (Tribunal) seeking injunction against interference in the leased premises. He had also sought for temporary injunction by filing I.A.No.133 of 2022 in O.S.No.15 of 2022. In the civil suit before the Tribunal, respondent Nos.8 and 9 are arrayed as defendants along with others. Tribunal granted temporary injunction on 15.03.2022. When the civil 7 dispute is pending, appellant requested the fifth respondent not to interfere in such civil disputes, that too in respect of land which is within the jurisdiction of Miyapur Police Station and not within the jurisdiction of the fifth respondent.
11. Notwithstanding such explanation, the fifth respondent continued to interfere with the possession of the appellant over the subject land.
12. It was in such circumstances, that the appellant filed the related writ petition seeking the relief as indicated above.
13. Appellant also filed two additional affidavits. In I.A.No.2 of 2022 appellant had stated that in the year 2018, M/s.Sai Pavan Estates and others had challenged Gazette notification dated 27.03.2014 before this Court in writ petition No.20707 of 2018. One of the partners of M/s.Sai Pavan Estates, Katikaneni Praveen Kumar also filed a writ petition before this Court being writ petition No.12548 of 2020. In an interlocutory application filed by 8 Katikaneni Praveen Kumar being I.A.No.1 of 2020 in writ petition No.12548 of 2020, an interim order came to be passed on 16.09.2020. This was challenged by the State before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.4058-4059 of 2020. It was contended that the interim order was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the State and that the interim order is in the nature of final order. Supreme Court vide the order dated 15.12.2020 set aside the interim order and directed the High Court to hear the writ petitions.
14. Thereafter, a Division Bench of this Court heard writ petition Nos.20707 of 2018, 9709 of 2020 (also on the same subject matter) and 12548 of 2020 and vide the order dated 30.03.2021 held as follows:
Conclusion :
Accordingly,
(i) W.P.Nos.20707 of 2018, 9709 of 2020 and 12548 of 2020 are allowed;
(ii) It is declared that the land in Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet village, Serlingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District is neither State Government land nor is it Wakf property, and that it is private property;9
(iii) It is declared that the act of registration of Acs.140.00 in Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as Wakf property attached to Dargah Hazrat Salar-E-
Auliya under Section 36 of the Wakf Act, 1995 by the then A.P. State Wakf Board on 13.12.2013 is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India and also in violation of principles of natural justice, the Wakf Act, 1995; and the said actions including Board Resolution No.936/2013 dt.09.12.2013 of the A.P. State Wakf Board, Muntakhab F No.16/RR/ REG/2013 published in Telangana Gazette Part II, bearing No.79 dt.01.11.2014 wherein Muntakhab was entered in Book of Endowment, Volume II at Page No.159, at Serial No.37 in F.No.16/RR/ REG/2013 dt.13.12.2013 was published, are set aside and declared as null and void;
(iv) The Telangana State Wakf Board is directed to delete the entry made in Column No.5, Book of Endowment Volume II, Telangana at Page 159 and Serial No.37 in F.No.16/RR/REG/2013 dt.13.12. 2013 in respect of the land in Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District;
(v) Letter in File No.M/35/SMPC/2005 dt.16.06.2020 written by the Telangana State Wakf Board to the Respondents 5 and 6 in W.P.No.20707 of 2018/Respondent No.6 in W.P.No.12548 of 2020 objecting to registrations of alienations by way of sale, gift, mortgage, conveyance etc., of land in Sy.No.80 or 80/A to D of Hafeezpet Village, 10 Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, is set aside;
(vi) The respondents in all Writ Petitions including the Tahsildar/Dy.Collector, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District shall permit registrations under the Registration Act, 1908 of the above land by way of sale, gift, mortgage, conveyance etc without raising any objection that the said land belongs to the State of Telangana or that it is Wakf property;
(vii) A direction is issued in W.P.No.9709 of 2020 to respondents 1, 3, 4 and 5 therein to delete the entries in the Revenue Records showing land in Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as 'Sarkari' and recording the State Government's possession;
(viii) A direction is issued in W.P.No.9709 of 2020 to respondents 1, 3, 4 and 5 to sub-divide the land in Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet village into Sy.No.80/A, 80/B, 80/C and 80/D as per (a) order dt.05-11-1970 in Application No.142 of 1970 in C.S.No.14 of 1958, (b) as per the decree dt.26-02- 2010 in Application No.132 of 2010 in C.S.No.14 of 1958 as modified by the order dt.04-06-2014 in Application No.500 of 2014 and (c) as per deed of partition document No.2789 of 2016 dt.10-03-2016 between the petitioner in W.P.No.12548 of 2020 and W.P.No.9709 of 2020;
(ix) Respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 in W.P.No.9709 of 2020 are further directed to mutate Ac.50.00 in Sy.No.80/D of Hafeezpet village, Serilingampalli 11 Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in favour of the petitioner and his co-owners;
(x) The above actions (iv),(vi),(vii),(viii) and (ix) shall be carried out within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and
(xi) The State of Telangana and its Officials and the Telangana State Wakf Board and its employees are restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioners in respect of the land claimed by them in Sy.No.80 or 80/D (forming part of Sy.No.80) of Hafeezpet village, Serilingampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District; and
(xii) The State of Telangana and the Telangana State Wakf Board shall each pay Rs.50,000/- as costs to each of petitioners in W.P.20707 of 2018 and to the petitioner in W.P.9709 of 2020 within 4 weeks.
15. This order dated 30.03.2021 has been assailed before the Supreme Court by the Telangana State Wakf Board in Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.7154, 7186, 7187, 7188 and 7195 of 2021. By the order dated 05.07.2021, Supreme Court issued notices returnable in six weeks and in the meanwhile directed that status quo shall be maintained by all the parties.
12
16. In the above context, appellant submitted that his possession and enjoyment over the subject land continued unhindered.
17. Appellant also filed another additional affidavit in I.A.No.4 of 2022. In the second additional affidavit, appellant referred to the status quo order of the Supreme Court dated 05.07.2021 and contended that any change in the nature of the subject land would constitute violation of the status quo order of the Supreme Court. Since the petitioner was in possession of the subject land prior to the status quo order dated 05.07.2021, he would continue his possession over the same. That apart, reference was made to the injunction granted by the Tribunal on 15.03.2022.
18. We may mention that in their implead application I.A.No.3 of 2022 respondent Nos.8 and 9 had referred to the Division Bench order dated 30.03.2021 contending that this Court had already declared the land not as wakf land but as patta land, further restraining the Wakf Board from interfering with the possession of the land in 13 survey No.80. Since claim of the Wakf Board stood rejected, appellant cannot raise any claim over a part of the said land on the strength of a lease deed by a wakf institution.
19. As already mentioned above, respondent Nos.8 and 9 were impleaded as such in the writ proceedings vide the order dated 20.04.2022 in I.A.No.3 of 2022.
20. Learned Single Judge vide the order dated 20.04.2022 declined to grant relief to the appellant and dismissed writ petition No.17900 of 2022 by holding that status quo order granted by the Supreme Court was for a period of six weeks; meaning thereby that the status quo order had lapsed thereafter.
21. Secondly, learned Single Judge held that appellant had approached the Court with unclean hands on account of suppression of material facts. He had suppressed about the Division Bench judgment and order of this Court declaring the land in question, of which the subject land is a part, as not being a wakf land as well as 14 the status quo order. Thus, according to learned Single Judge, conduct of the appellant is nothing but playing fraud on the Court.
22. We are afraid on both counts learned Single Judge fell in grave error. It is true that Supreme Court vide the order dated 05.07.2021 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.7154 of 2021 and batch had issued notices returnable in six weeks and in the meanwhile directed maintenance of status quo by all the parties. The above special leave to appeal petitions are still pending before the Supreme court. The status quo order passed on 05.07.2021 has neither been vacated nor modified by the Supreme Court. Therefore, it was wholly wrong on the part of the learned Single Judge to assume that status quo order of the Supreme Court was confined only for a period of six weeks. Unless the status quo order is specifically vacated or modified by the Supreme Court while S.L.P. (C) No.7154 of 2021 and batch are still pending, the same cannot be overlooked; rather it is binding on the parties. As long as the status quo order of 15 the Supreme Court is in place, all the parties are bound to follow the same in letter and spirit.
23. That apart, appellant was not a party to the litigation in writ petition Nos.20707 of 2018, 9709 of 2020 and 12548 of 2020 which were disposed of vide the common order dated 30.03.2021 declaring the land in question to be not a wakf property; rather a private property. It is this order which is under impugnment in S.L.P. (C) No.7154 of 2021 and batch, in which Supreme Court had issued notice with a status quo order. When the appellant is not a party to the said proceedings, to hold him guilty of deliberate non-mentioning of the said litigation would not be justified. Of course, this fact was brought to the notice of this Court by the appellant by filing I.A.No.2 of 2022 on 11.04.2022 on which date, respondent Nos.8 and 9 had filed the implead petition. Learned Single Judge was therefore not justified in holding that only after respondent Nos.8 and 9 had stated about the above facts in their implead petition, that the appellant came to file the two additional 16 affidavits placing on record the above facts. This is factually not correct and therefore, it would be wholly improper to declare that appellant had played fraud on the Court by suppression of material facts.
24. Having said so, the question which now boils down is to what relief appellant is entitled to in a writ proceeding. As already seen, prayer made by the appellant in the writ petition was for a direction to the fifth respondent not to interfere with his possession over the subject land. Obviously such a direction, in our opinion, would lie within the competence or domain of a civil court. When a dispute as to land has been raised with conflicting claims and counter claims, it is axiomatic that such a dispute should be resolved by a civil court of competent jurisdiction as it would require adjudication of facts on the basis of evidence, oral as well as documentary. As a matter of fact, appellant himself has instituted O.S.No.15 of 2022 before the Tribunal seeking injunction against the defendants from interfering with his possession over the subject land. In the said civil suit, 17 on an interlocutory application filed by the appellant being I.A.No.133 of 2022, Tribunal had passed an order of temporary injunction. Therefore, all the parties are required to comply with the injunction order of the Tribunal. If there is any violation of the injunction order, it is open to the appellant to seek necessary order from the Tribunal. But a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be a proper remedy for redressal of such a grievance.
25. We may mention about the provision of Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which deals with consequence of disobedience or breach of injunction. Sub-rule (1) says that in the case of disobedience of any injunction granted or breach of the same, the Court granting the injunction or any Court to which the suit or proceeding is transferred may order the property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach to be attached, and may also order such person to be detained in the civil prison for a term not exceeding 18 three months, unless in the meantime the Court directs his release.
25.1. As per sub-rule (2), no attachment made under sub-rule (1) shall remain in force for more than one year. However, if the disobedience or breach continues beyond the said period, the property attached may be sold and out of the proceeds, the Court may award such compensation as it thinks fit to the injured party and shall pay the balance, if any, to the party entitled thereto.
26. Therefore, it is evident that appellant has an adequate remedy in the event he is aggrieved by breach of the injunction order.
27. That being the position, order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 20.04.2022 in W.P.No.17900 of 2022 is hereby set aside. Appellant is granted liberty to approach the Tribunal in the pending civil suit to raise the issue of violation of the injunction order. However, as long as the status quo order of the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.7154 of 2021 and batch 19 remains in force, all the parties are bound to strictly comply with the same.
28. This disposes of the writ appeal.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ ______________________________________ SUREPALLI NANDA, J 05.06.2023 pln