Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 193 (1.85 seconds)
Documents citing Sayyed Ali And Ors vs Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board Hyderabad And ... on 28 January, 1998

Madrasa Ahle Sunnath Bahrul Uloon vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. on 10 February, 2004

Indeed, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sayyed Ali v. A.P. Wakf Board (supra) shows that A.P. Wakf Board has exclusive right to the property covered by title deed No. 42. Secondly, A.P. Wakf Board does not dispute the contention that compensation has been ordered to be apportioned among the encroachers on one hand and A.P. Wakf Board and the Government on the other hand. When A.P. Wakf Board itself has no objection for apportionment of compensation for Devada lands, I am afraid, I cannot hold otherwise, especially when the petitioner has no locus standi.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Vakacharla Veeraiah vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 9 July, 2021

By applying the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the said judgment to the present case, deity Sri Venkateswara Swamy varu is a perpetual minor and the State is under obligation to take care of the property of the temple as the patta is deemed to have been granted in favour of the temple. If such ordinance, which takes away the rights of the deity in the immovable property, is allowed to remain, it will have its serious consequences and it amounts to disowning the obligation of the State to protect the rights of the deity, which is perpetual minor. Thereafter, after expiry of Ordinance No.02 of 2019, the rights and obligations that accrued to any person stand effaced or obliterated since the ordinance itself is ceased to operate. The vendors of the petitioner can claim benefit of 'enduring rights theory', if they are rendering service in the temple, because they obtained patta under Inams Act. But the vendors are not the petitioners herein. Therefore, enduring rights theory propounded in the judgments referred above is not applicable to the case of the petitioner being a purchaser under unregistered sale deed.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 47 - Cited by 0 - M S Murthy - Full Document

Srinivasan And Six Others vs Sri Madhyarjuneswaraswami, ... on 30 April, 1998

Consequently, in our view, the ratio of the decisions of the Apex Court reported in State of Tamil Nadu v. Ramalinga Swamigal Madam, , R. Manicka Naicker v. E. Elumalai Naicker, and Sayyed Ali v. A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad, and that of a Division Bench of this Court in Ramanujam Kavirayar, T.K. v. Sri-La-Sri Sivaprakasa Pandara Sannathi Avargal, 1988 (2) L.W. 513 and of a learned single Judge of this Court in Samsuddin Rowther and another v. Avvammal and 2 others, 1992 (1) L.W. 207 would squarely apply and govern the case and consequently, it has to be necessarily held that the jurisdiction of the civil Courts cannot be held to have been completely ousted or barred at any rate in respect of adjudication of claims of title and questions or issues which are not obliged or required to be adjudicated for the purposes of enforcement of these laws which has, as their objection and aim, to implement ryotwari settlement in the areas governed by them.
Madras High Court Cites 70 - Cited by 117 - V Kanagaraj - Full Document

Society Of St. Joseph'S College, By Its ... vs A. Doraisami (Died) And Nine Others on 30 July, 1998

In the light of the decisions cited supra, it can be seen that the following are the scope of the proceedings taken under the said Act:- (1) The proceedings taken under the said Act is only incidental and in a summary manner merely for the purpose of passing the orders granting or refusing to grant patta; (2) There is no provision for deciding any dispute between two persons claiming rival kudiwaramdars and so any order deciding the said rival claim cannot be considered as a final one and as the same has been passed within the jurisdiction of the authorities; (3) If the tribunal is not having jurisdiction to decide claim the said decision of findings cannot operate as res judicata.
Madras High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Inspector-Auditor, A.P. Wakf Board vs Revenue Divisional Officer-Cum-Land ... on 23 February, 2007

In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - K C Bhanu - Full Document

Tajuddin (Deceased) Through Lr. vs Faqruddin (Deceased) Through Lr. on 3 November, 2006

The learned Counsel for the appellant further contended that the above judgment in the case of Sayyed Ali and Ors. v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad and Ors. (supra) was discussed and considered in subsequent judgment reported in Punjab Wakf board v. Gram Panchayat @ Gram Sabha , and it was held that the same is not applicable on the question involved in the present case. It is relevant to mention that the order of the Revenue Board was challenged by the defendant Badruddin in the writ petition before this Court, which has already been dismissed, therefore, the judgment of the Revenue board has attained finality. This order has been passed by statutory authority while exercising powers under Statute, therefore, it is binding on all parties. The disputed property is seven big has of land which was gifted by the then Ruler. After the death of Hazrat Ziauddin, Mohiuddin was appointed as Sajjadanashin, but when he was found involved in theft case, then the then-Ruler removed him from his post and appointed Kamaluddin as Sajjadanashin. The powers of the then Ruler were unquestionable. It is also relevant to mention that there is codified law for declaration of successor of last holder. Even if there is any custom for appointment on the post of Sajjadanashin then the same can not be contrary to prevailing statute and codified law will prevail over the custom. The gifted property by the ruler has to be managed by successor according to law. There can not be two different persons, one as successor and another as Sajjadanashin. Otherwise property in dispute cannot be managed properly, any person who is declared as successor and in whose favour matmi is sanctioned by competent authority under the Statute is entitled to hold the posts of Sajjadanashin as well as Mutwalli also, therefore, after declaration by the Revenue board that Tajuddin, the plaintiff, is successor of the last holder Kamaluddin and succession was sanctioned in favour of Tajuddin then the plaintiff Tajuddin becomes entitled to be declared as Sajjadanashin and Mutwalli of the Dargah in dispute. The finding of the lower Court in respect of issue No. 1 is, therefore, liable to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside and issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff Tajuddin and he is declared as Sajjadanashin as well as Mutwalli of Dargah Hazrat Ziauddin Sahib.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Punjab Wakf Board vs Gram Panchayat @ Gram Sabha on 1 December, 1999

It will be noticed, however, that the dispute in the Sayyed Ali's case was between the Wakf Board on the one hand and the Mutawalli his lessees and the sub-lessees on the other hand. It was on those facts that it was held that the question as to whether the property belongs to Wakf Board or not could not have been decided by the Tahsildar under the Inams Abolition Act, inasmuch as the Notification was binding between the Wakf Board and the Mutawalli. The decision in Sayyed Ali is in our opinion based upon the Specific provision of sub-section (1) of Section 6. the dispute there being between the Wakf on the one hand and its Mutawalli or persons claiming from him, on the other. Once the decision of the Tahsildar or the Revenue Divisional Officer or the order of the High Court dated 22.4.1970 was out of the way, because of the Notification, the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board relying upon the same Notification could be decreed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 69 - M J Rao - Full Document

Lakshmi Saroja vs The Salem Muslim Burial Ground on 6 August, 2009

The Wakf Board relied on 1976 (4) SCC 780(Syed Mohd. Salie Labbai Vs. Mohd. Hanifa) where it was held that once a property becomes a wakf property it would continue to be the same notwithstanding non-user ; and also on Sayyed Ali Vs. A.P. Wakf Board(1998 (2) SCC 642). The Supreme Court distinguished Sayyed Alis case and held that the dispute there was between the wakf on the one hand and its Mutawalli or persons claiming from him, while here the dispute was between the Wakf Board and the Panchayat representing the village community. The Supreme Court held that if no notice was issued, 23. We, therefore, hold that the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a Mohammedan wakf or not.
Madras High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Auth. Sign., Golden Tobacco Limited, ... vs Prl Secy, Minorities Welf Dept, Guntur ... on 27 August, 2019

Even assuming for a moment that Mir Ameen Ali Abdul Raja Amanullah Sahib was given grant for performing public service i.e. 'calling mussalmans daily for reading Namaz in that village' by document deed No.980 dated 02.02.1861, it is a grant coupled with an obligation i.e. service inam. As long as he is continuing to render service, he is entitled to enjoy the usufruct on the property, but he will not become the owner of the property in general. Therefore, the Waqf is in favour of an institution, but not in favour of an individual. This view is supported by the judgment of the Apex Court in Sayyed Ali and others v. A.P.Waqf Board, Hyderabad and others (referred supra), wherein, it was held that, a Waqf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious religious or charitable and the property having been found as 13 HACJ & MSM,J WA_1658_2017 Waqf would always retain its character as a Waqf. In other words, once a Waqf always a Waqf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made in respect of the property constituting the same as Waqf. After a Waqf had been created, it continues to be so for all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Waqf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Waqf property.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - M S Murthy - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next