Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Ap State Wakf Board vs Valluru Srikanth on 5 February, 2024
Author: R. Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R. Raghunandan Rao
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT APPEAL No.1064 of 2023
The A.P. State Waqf Board,
Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer,
ImdadGhar, Kaleswara Rao Market,
Vijayawada, Krishna (NTR) District.
... Appellant
Versus
Valluru Srikanth S/o. Venkata Swamy M.C.,
Aged about 38 years, Occ: Software Engineer,
R/o. North Karolin, USA,
Rep. by his Father/Special Power of Attorney,
M.C. Venkata Swamy S/o. M. Minalla,
R/o. Flat No.G-3, Janapriya Castle Apts.,
Ramanagar Gundu, Hyderabad and three others.
...Respondents
Mr. Mohd. Gayasuddin, Counsel for the appellant.
Mr. S. M. Subhan, Counsel for respondent No.1.
Government Pleader for Revenue, Counsel for respondent Nos.2
to 4.
DATE : 05.02.2023
PER DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ:
1. The present writ appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
has been preferred against the judgment and order dated
HCJ & RRR, J
12.12.2022 passed in W.P.No.494 of 2019. The writ petition was
allowed following the judgment passed in W.P.No.16911 of 2021
and batch dated 17.12.2021.
2. The petitioner had filed the writ petition seeking a direction in
the nature of Mandamus to entertain the Sale Deed for registration
in regard to an open Plot No.211 in Survey No.19 admeasuring two
hundred and twenty square yards in Dinnedevarapadu Village,
Kurnool District. The registering authority was not registering the
Sale Deed on the ground that the property was contained in the
prohibitory list issued under Section 22-A of the Registration Act,
1908.
3. From the record it can be seen that in the judgment and order
rendered in W.P.No.16911 of 2021, the writ Court had noticed a
Division Bench judgment of the combined High Court in W.P.No.989
of 2007, dated 20.06.2011 in which a finding was recorded that
there was no document produced on behalf of the Waqf Board to
show as to how the property falling under the entire Survey No.19
in Dinnedevarapadu Village came to be settled as Waqf property.
Not only this, it was also held that the Commissioner of Waqf also in
its report had not indicated any such evidence.
The Division Bench also appears to have noticed the decision
in O.S.No.43 of 1969, dated 27.10.1969, in which the Civil Court
HCJ & RRR, J
clearly declared that the Waqf Board had failed to establish their
title over the property in question and proceeded to hold that the
Gazette notification dated 24.10.1963, was issued without proper
enquiry. The learned single Judge in W.P.Nos.16911 of 2021 and
batch, proceeded to hold as under:
"These two findings are findings of Courts of competent
jurisdiction. Admittedly, the Waqf Board has not filed any
appeal against the order of the Division Bench. They not filed a
suit in which liberty was given by the Court in WP. No.989 of
2007 (subject to limitation etc,). No material is placed before
this Court also to show how the property was included in the list
of waqf properties. Despite the clear findings of Courts and the
reasons for the findings being apparent, the Wag Board could
not establish that these properties are actually endowed/ settled
on the waqf. No details of any such deed, document etc., are
forthcoming to establish that the property is Waqf property
even in this writ. Hence, this Court has to hold that the issues
already decided in WP.No.989 of 2007 and O.S.No.43 of 1969
clearly prohibit the Waqf Board from asserting any title. Neither
the original notification nor the addendum notification can be
said to be valid documents in the absence of any clear details to
show that these notifications were issued and after a proper
enquiry and application of mind. The findings of the Division
Bench and the Subordinate Judges Court also are against the
Waqf Board in this aspect. Hence, for all these reasons, this
Court has to negative the contentions urged by the Waqf Board.
In W.P.No.16911 of 2021, there shall be a direction that the
inclusion of the land under section 22-A of the Act of Sy.No. 19
of Dinnedevarapadu Village is held to be contrary to law. The
respondent authorities, namely respondent No.5 and his
subordinates are directed to receive and register the deeds with
HCJ & RRR, J
regard to the petitioners' properties situated in Sy.No. 19 of
Dinnedevarapadu Village, Kurnool Mandal and District if the
documents are otherwise in accordance with the provisions of
the Stamp Act and the Registration Act. The registration cannot
be stopped merely on the ground that the property is included
under Section 22-A of the Act."
4. A Letters Patent Appeal filed by the A.P. State Waqf Board
against the judgment and order rendered in the W.P.Nos.16911 of
2021 and batch, also was dismissed by virtue of the judgment and
order dated 08.07.2022.
5. Having considered the entire matter, and in view of the
dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal in W.A.Nos.394 of 2022 and
291 of 2022, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment and
order impugned in the present Letters Patent Appeal.
6. Be that as it may, the present writ appeal is found to be
without merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
SSN
HCJ & RRR, J
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
(Per Dhiraj Singh Thakur, CJ)
DATE : 05.02.2023
SSN
