Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. The Second Appeal preferred by the defendants against decree and judgment in A.S 40 of 1991 in S.A No. 605 of 1993 was dismissed with the same observation, by decree and judgment dated 04.02.2002. Thus, in the decree and judgments in O.S Nos. 402 of 1976, 41 of 1978 and 42 of 1978, the original Gazette notification dated 26.03.1964 and errata gazette notification dated 03.08.1978 were declared as invalid and those findings became final. The suit in O.S 5 HACJ & MSM, J No.274 of 1983 challenging the errata notification dated 03.08.1978 was also confirmed by the appellate courts.

11. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed common counter denying all the material allegations inter-alia contending that after commencement of The Act, 1954, Government of Andhra Pradesh appointed Survey Commissioner under Section 4 of The Act, to survey all wakfs and its attached properties existed prior to enactment of The Act or subsequently. Accordingly, Survey Commissioner had submitted a survey report dated 19.02.1956 in respect of Mosque situated at "Guntha bazaar" and sent a list. Due to over sight and inadvertence, the Survey Commissioner, failed to mention the Inam land which was given as wakf to the said institution. So, an errata notification was issued mentioning the extent of Ac.3.70 cents by publication in Gazette No.30 dated 03.08.1978, belonging to the institution. Again further details are given in the subsequent errata notification No.20 Part II Miscellaneous, dated 15.05.2008 at page 486. On the basis of judgment of this Court in S.A No.605 of 1993, an errata notification was issued notifying the Mosque and its property in Sy.No.18/1, measuring Ac.3.70 cents of Nagarajupalli, Kadapa town. The government of Andhra Pradesh had abolished all Inams by Inams (A A) Abolition Act, 1956 and by subsequent amendment Act 16 of 2013 with retrospective effect from 26.11.1956, to the effect that all Inams in the names of individuals are also abolished, except given for religious and charitable purpose in favour of the institutions. So the contentions raised by the petitioner in the petition regarding said land holds no substance, in view of the provisos of Section 4 read with Section 7 of Inams Abolition Act as amended by Act 16 of 2013, the institutions alone are entitled to claim 7 HACJ & MSM, J rytwari patta, as once wakf is always wakf. The errata notification dated 26.04.2008 is legal and valid, upheld by the Apex Court as well as by the High Court holding that the Gazette-errata relates back to the date of initial publication and something is in existence which is being corrected by issuing errata notification vide judgments reported in 2012 ALD page 385, 2012 (6) ALT 379 (D.B), 2012 (4) ALD 144 and 2012 (4) ALT 136 DB.

20. Considering rival contentions, perusing the material on record, the points that arose for consideration are:

1. Whether the errata notification dated 26.04.2008 published in A.P Gazette No.20 Part II dated 15.05.2008 is in accordance with law and whether this Court can exercise power of judicial review under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, when a statutory remedy under 11 HACJ & MSM, J Section 7 of The Act is available to the petitioner to challenge the errata notification dated 26.04.2008?

32. As discussed above, the respondents did not issue any notice before issuance of errata notification and the said fact is also admitted in para No.3 of the counter, wherein it is specifically pleaded that S.M Ibrahim filed O.S No.274 of 1983 on the file of IV Additional District Munsiff, Kadapa, challenging the errata notification and the suit was dismissed. The appeal preferred against the judgment vide A.S No.40 of 1991 before the I Additional District Judge, Kadapa was allowed with a specific observation that the Wakf Board is at liberty to take up fresh 22 HACJ & MSM, J enquiry in accordance with the provisions of The Act in respect of wakf properties covered in Sy.No.18/1, giving an opportunity to the present petitioner i.e. S.M Ibrahim. The second appeal preferred in S.A No.605 of 1993 by the Wakf Board before the High Court was dismissed on 04.02.2002, in the light of the observations made by the first appellate court, the Wakf Board is at liberty to conduct an enquiry and to take up action as per the statutory provisions. This admission is sufficient to conclude that they are aware about claim of the petitioner's ancestors over the property, but failed to issue notice before conducting enquiry under Section 4 of The Act, affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner before registering the property as wakf by publication in the gazette, even according to the judgment of the Division Bench referred supra, a notice is required to be given to the persons interested or claiming. In the present facts of the case, S.M. Ibrahim/plaintiff in O.S No.274 of 1983, challenged the errata notification in the suit, but the suit was dismissed. However, the appeal filed against judgment in the suit and second appeal, both were allowed declaring the notification as illegal. In such case, before issuing notification and registering the property as wakf, an opportunity shall be given at least to the petitioner in compliance or adhering to the principles of natural justice. Despite, the observation made by the first appellate court in A.S No.40 of 1991 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Kadapa directing to conduct fresh enquiry in accordance with the provisions of The Act, giving an opportunity to the persons who filed the suit. The person who filed the suit was S.M Ibrahim/petitioner herein, but no notice as directed by the court in A.S No.40 of 1991 was issued before issuing gazette notification. Hence, the errata notification dated 26.04.2008 issued by Wakf Board which is impugned in this writ petition is contrary to the direction and in 23 HACJ & MSM, J violation of principles of the natural justice. As stated above, by applying the principles laid down in Golusu Ramulu (5th cited supra), we hold that the errata notification dated 26.04.2008 issued was without adhering to the direction issued by the I Additional District Judge, Kadapa in A.S No.40 of 1991 and in violation of principles of natural justice same is liable to be set aside, giving liberty to the 2nd respondent to conduct enquiry after affording an opportunity to the petitioner and take appropriate action. Accordingly, this point is answered. POINT No.2:-