Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Emphasizing further, the learned counsel submits that the 2nd respondent has not challenged the said Original Gazette Notification dated 24.10.1963 within the time stipulated by the Act or taken steps seeking rectification/modification to the Official Gazette Notification and as such the same has become final. He submits that in the light of the unambiguous statutory provisions, the issuance of Errata Notification dated 13.08.2019 impugned in the Writ Petition is not only without jurisdiction, but also contrary to the material on record i.e., Communication dated 12.08.2018 of the Inspector Auditor, Wakf, Kurnool District addressed to the revenue authorities, wherein he requested to send proposals to the 2nd respondent for taking necessary action to de-notify Sy.Nos.165/1, 166/1 & 166/3 to an extent of Ac.33.15 cents of Munagalapadu Village, Kurnool District, while stating that the said survey numbers were not published either in the A.P. Gazette or in the Survey Commissioner‟s report and further that the property had not carried out in any of the Wakf Records. Placing reliance on the decisions of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy vs. Syed Jalal1 and State of Andhra Pradesh (Now State of Telangana) vs. A.P. State Wakf Board and Others 2, the learned counsel would contend that the matter is squarely covered by the said decisions and seeks to allow the Writ Petition.

13. In State of Andhra Pradesh (Now State of Telangana) vs. A.P. State Wakf Board and Others referred to supra, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court was dealing with more or less similar fact situation, as in the present case. Before the High Court Writ Petitions challenging the Errata Notification dated 13.03.2006 (published in the Original Gazette of State of Andhra Pradesh on 06.04.2006) to the Notification published in A.P. Gazette No.6-A, dated 9-2-1989 were filed. The relevant portion of Errata Notification reads thus:-

"ERRATA NOTIFICATION OF DARGAH NZT HUSSAIN SHAH VALI, MANIKONDA (V), RAJENDRANAGAR (M), R.R DISTRICT F.No.M1/69/PROT/RR/04 - In the Notification published in A.P. Gazette No.6-A dated 9-2-1989 at page No.262 under Sl.No.3057, 3058 and 3059 the service Inam lands attached to the subject institution were not notified. Hence the following addendum is notified."

14. The High Court after detailed examination of the matter formulated the points for consideration, inter alia, as to whether the Errata Notification dated 06.04.2006 is ultra vires the provisions of the Wakf Act, 1995 and whether the Writ Petitions challenging the Errata Notifications, are maintainable and whether they are barred, in view of the effective and efficacious alternative remedy available under the Wakf Act, 1995.

18. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court after detailed examination of the matter, allowed the appeals by setting aside the order of the High Court and quashed the Errata Notification dated 13.03.2006.

19. In the present case, the Errata Notification to the Original Notification dated 24.10.1963 was issued in 2019 i.e., after a long lapse of about 56 years. In the Counter, the respondents sought to justify the issuance of Errata Notification stating that the survey numbers were inadvertently/by mistake not mentioned in the Original Gazette Notification, though T.D. Nos. were mentioned. Thus, it is a case of non-inclusion of specific property and in such circumstances, the Wakf Board have remedies under the Wakf Act, but the same were not availed, in terms of the statutory prescription under Section 6 of the Act. Thus the Original Notification has attained finality, as non-inclusion of the land was not questioned nor any other statutory remedies were invoked by the Board. The ratio laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy supra squarely applies to the case on hand.