THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL No.945 OF 2023
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)
Mr. Mohd. Ismail, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mr.J. Kanakaiah, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent
Nos.1 and 2-writ petitioners.
2. This intra court appeal arises from the order dated
19.09.2002 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by
which Writ Petition No.3234 of 2019 preferred by the respondent
Nos.1 and 2, has been allowed.
3. Facts
giving rise to filing of the writ petition, briefly stated, are that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 claimed to be lessees and in possession of the land bearing Sy.Nos.895/AA/2 and 896/AA measuring Acs.1-32 Gts., and Acs.0-32½ Gts., respectively, situated at Toopran Village and Mandal, Medak District. By a gazette notification dated 20.12.2001, the lands of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 (writ petitioners) were notified as wakf properties.
::2::
The respondent Nos.1 and 2 challenged the aforesaid notification in Writ Petition Nos.3215 and 3234 of 2019.
4. The learned Single Judge took note of the fact that the controversy involved in the writ petition is covered by order of the learned Single Judge dated 22.09.2016 passed in W.P.No.33133 of 2014. It was further held that survey was conducted in the year 1970 under the Wakf Act, 1954, which was repealed in 1995. It was further held that the Act under which the survey was conducted was repealed and thereafter after a period of more than 30 years, the notification dated 20.12.2001 was issued for which there is no explanation. Learned Single Judge has followed the order dated 06.02.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.9378 of 2009 and allowed the writ petition, which was confirmed by a Division Bench judgment in W.A.No.1010 of 2012 dated 07.11.2013.
5. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.
::3::
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge without appreciating the facts and law, has allowed the writ petition. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in allowing the writ petition.
7. On the other hand, Senior Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, has supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
8. Admittedly, for the same cause, survey was conducted in the year 1970 under the Wakf Act, 1954. The aforesaid Act was repealed in the year 1995. Thereafter, the gazettee notification has been issued after an inordinate delay of more than 30 years on 20.12.2001 under the provisions of the Wakf Act, 1995. It is pertinent to note that the learned Single Judge has followed a decision rendered by the learned Single of this Court in W.P.No.9378 of 2009 which has been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 07.11.2013 in W.A.No.1010 of 2012.
9. In the facts of the case, we do not find any ground to differ with the view taken by the learned Single Judge.
::4::
10. In the result, the writ appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed.
__________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ ________________________ N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR, J Date:03.10.2023 Lrkm