Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Ap State Waqf Board vs Pyreddy Bala Chandra Reddy on 17 October, 2024
Author: R Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
APHC010419532023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3446]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR
&
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT APPEAL NO: 1044/2023
Between:
The Chief Executive Officer and Others ...APPELLANT(S)
AND
Shaik Apsar Hussen and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. SHAIK KHAJA BASHA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. SRINIVASA RAO PUTLURI
2. GP FOR REVENUE
3. GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE
APHC010546562023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3446]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
2
HCJ&RRR,J
W.A. Nos.1044, 1138 of 2023 & 28 of 2024
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT APPEAL NO: 1138/2023
Between:
The A P State Wakf Board ...APPELLANT
AND
Kusupati Siva Prasad and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. SHAIK KHAJA BASHA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE
2. SURYAM GANNAVARAPU
APHC010419552023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3446]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT APPEAL NO: 28/2024
Between:
The Ap State Waqf Board and Others ...APPELLANT(S)
AND
3
HCJ&RRR,J
W.A. Nos.1044, 1138 of 2023 & 28 of 2024
Pyreddy Bala Chandra Reddy and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. SHAIK KHAJA BASHA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE
2. SURYAM GANNAVARAPU
COMMON JUDGMENT
Dt: 17.10.2024
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice R.Raghunandan Rao)
Heard Sri P. Veera Reddy, the learned Senior counsel
appearing for Sri Mohammed Gayasuddin, learned counsel for
appellants and Sri Srinivasa Rao Potluri, Sri O. Manohar Reddy, the
learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Suryam Gannavarapu,
learned counsel for the respondents.
2. As all the three Writ Appeals relate to the same Errata
notification and raise similar issues of law and fact, they are being
disposed of, by way of this common Judgment.
3. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, by a notification
dated 24.10.1963 had declared that Ac.263.00 cents of land is Waqf
property belonging to Zulekhani Mosque of Kurnool Town, covered
by title deeds 3078, 3726, 3716 and 1288, in the villages of
Munagalapadu and Gargayapuram, on the basis of the report of the
HCJ&RRR,J
W.A. Nos.1044, 1138 of 2023 & 28 of 2024
Commissioner, appointed by the Government, under the provisions
of the Muslim Waqf Act of 1954. This notification did not set out any
survey numbers in relation to the land.
4. Subsequently, by way of an Errata notification bearing
No.32 dated 13.08.2019, the respondent-Board sought correction of
the original notification in the following manner:
Errata Notification
F.No.S-41/KNL/2014 - Publication for Errata notification to the A.P.
Gazette No.43A, Supply, Part-II, dt.24.10.1963 at Sl.No.3124 in
page No.30 & 31 under Column No.9 as per RSR and Survey
Commissioner Report in respect of Zulekhani Mosque situated at
Kurnool Town & District.
FOR READ
Column No.9 Column No.9
Lands T.D.No.Sy. Extent Lands T.D.No. Sy.No. Extent
No. Ac.Cts
Munagalapadu 3073 263.60 Munagalapadu 3073 186 0.54
3726 3716 154 18.22
3718 155 20.64
156 17.67
157 24.06
165 19.84
166 13.31
205 14.55
HCJ&RRR,J
W.A. Nos.1044, 1138 of 2023 & 28 of 2024
207 2.94
210 15.19
225 18.57
226 21.20
229 21.20
230 18.72
231 20.38
3718 93 1.65
146 17.92
Total 263.60
Gargayapuram 1288 85.43 Gargayapuram 1288 210 19.52
215 29.85
565 34.32
567 1.44
Total 85.13
In the present set of Writ Appeals, all the claims relate to the
land in Munagalapadu village only.
5. It appears that after the publication of the Errata
notification, the land in the survey numbers mentioned in the
Errata notification was kept in the prohibitory list under Section
22-A of the Registration Act. Over time, various persons who
claimed title and possession over the land, having come to know of
the errata notification and about the inclusion of these lands in the
HCJ&RRR,J
W.A. Nos.1044, 1138 of 2023 & 28 of 2024
prohibitory list, approached this Court, by way of three writ
petitions namely W.P.No.13905 of 2021, W.P.No.32377 of 2022 and
W.P.No.19769 of 2021, challenging the Errata notification dated
13.08.2019.
6. These writ petitions were allowed, setting aside the
Errata notification to the extent of the inclusion of the subject
property in each of the writ petitions.
7. Aggrieved by the said judgments, these three Writ
Appeals have been filed by the Waqf Board.
8. In W.P.No.13905 of 2021 and W.P.No.19769 of 2021,
the learned Single Judge, by way of separate orders dated
28.04.2023, after noticing the following Judgments in Madanuri Sri
Rama Chandra Murthy vs. Syed Jalal1, State of Andhra Pradesh
(Now State of Telangana) vs. A.P. State Wakf Board and Others 2,
Lanco Hills Technology Park Private Limited and Others vs.
Mahaboob Alam Khan and Others3, State of Andhra Pradesh &
Others vs. Twin City Jewellers Association & Others4 had held that,
issuance of an Errata notification, 56 years after the issuance of
original notification, is not permissible and that the Errata
(2017) 13 SCC 174
2022 SCC onine SC 159
2012 (4) ALT 136
(2005) 13 SCC 552
HCJ&RRR,J
W.A. Nos.1044, 1138 of 2023 & 28 of 2024
notification has now included properties which were not included
under the original notification and had set aside the Errata
notification.
9. A learned Single Judge, allowed W.P.No.32377 of 2022,
by an order, dated 11.07.2023, holding that no documents had been
produced by the Waqf Board to show as to who endowed the
property in favour of the Mosque, by what instrument, on which
date and in respect of what extent of land and in which specified
territory and that none of these details are disclosed in the
Commissioners' report which is the basis for the original
notification and the Errata notification; the factum of possession of
the petitioners over the subject land is not denied by the
respondents nor was any notice issued to the petitioners before
issuing the impugned Errata notification which amounts to violation
of principles of natural justice, had set aside the Errata notification.
It may also be noticed that the learned Single Judge recorded the
endorsement given to the petitioner by the Collector's Office,
Kurnool that the Inam fair register of the subject survey numbers
and title deeds are not available.
10. Sri P. Veera Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the appellant-Waqf Board contends that the report of
HCJ&RRR,J
W.A. Nos.1044, 1138 of 2023 & 28 of 2024
the Commissioner set out the survey numbers and the extent of
land in each of the survey number which belonged to the Zulekhani
Masjid. He contends that the original notification simply set out the
title deed numbers, of the inams granted to the Masjid, and that the
Errata notification did not bring in any new land but only gave
further details as to the location of the lands, which was already
available in the survey report of the commissioner. He submits that
in such a situation, the findings of the learned Single Judge that new
extents of land had been brought into the fold of the Zulekhani
Mosque is incorrect.
11. Sri O. Manohar Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel,
appearing for the respondents, in the Writ Appeals, would submit
that the Errata notification is based upon the survey report of the
Commissioner, prepared under the 1954 Act. He submits that, after
the said report had been prepared, the Waqf Act 1954 has been
repealed and the Waqf Act of 1995 was enacted in its place. He
submits that Section 112 of the 1995 Act, which is the saving
clause, does not save the report of surveyors, prepared under the
Wakf Act, 1954, and relies upon the Judgment of a learned Single
Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature for the State of
Hyderabad and the State of Andhra Pradesh reported in Gosula
HCJ&RRR,J
W.A. Nos.1044, 1138 of 2023 & 28 of 2024
Ramulu and Others vs. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad
and Others.5
12. Sri O. Manohar Reddy, would also contend that the land
set out in the title deeds mentioned in the original notification is not
situated in Munagalapadu village and as such, the inclusion of
survey numbers in Munagalapadu village by way of an Errata is not
permissible. He would submit that an Errata, at best, is to rectify a
typographical error or clerical error and the Waqf Board, by
publishing an Errata cannot seek to bring in land which is not
otherwise covered under the original notification.
Consideration of the Court:
13. The two questions that arise before this Court are...
1) Whether the Errata is supported by any material or the
survey report conducted by the survey of the
Commissioner under the Wakf Act, 195?
2) Whether the survey conducted by the Commissioner under
the Wakf Act, 1954 can be utilized for issuing Errata under
the Wakf Act, 1994?
2017 (5) ALD 298
HCJ&RRR,J
W.A. Nos.1044, 1138 of 2023 & 28 of 2024
14. The genesis of the entire dispute is the survey report of
the Commissioner, submitted under the provisions of the Wakf Act,
1954.
15. Section 4 of the Wakf Act, 1954 provides for a
preliminary survey of Wakfs to be conducted by a survey
Commissioner, appointed by way of an notification in the official
Gazettee, for ascertaining the Wakf proprieties existing in the State
at the date of commencement of the Wakf Act, 1954. Section 4(3)
required that the report, prepared after such a survey to contain
the following:
4(3) The Survey Commissioner shall, after making such
inquiry as he may consider necessary, submit his report in respect
of wakfs existing at the date of the commencement of this Act in the
State or any part thereof to the State Government containing the
following particulars, namely:-
a) the number of wakfs in the State, or as the case maybe any
part thereof showing the Shia wakfs and Sunni wakfs separately;
b) the nature and objects of each wakf;
c) the gross income of the property comprised in each wakf;
d) the amount of land revenue, cesses, rates and taxes
payable in respect of such property;
HCJ&RRR,J
W.A. Nos.1044, 1138 of 2023 & 28 of 2024
e) the expense incurred in the realization of the income and
the pay or other remuneration of the mutawalli of each wakf; and
f) such other particular relating to each wakf as may be
prescribed.
16. Thereafter, the said report was to be forwarded by the
State Government to the Wakf Board which would examine the
report and publish the same in the official gazette setting out the list
of wakfs to which the report relates along with the particulars that
are contained in the said report.
17. The Xerox copy of the report of the Commissioner, said
to have been submitted on 24.04.1956, was placed before this
Court. The original of this report was summoned to Court and
examined by us. The copy filed along with the material papers in the
Writ Appeal, is the same as the original survey report.
18. The report of the Commissioner states that the title
deeds, relating to the property of the Zulekhani Masjid are title deed
Numbers 3073, 3716, 3718 of Munagalapadu Village and title deed
nos.1288 of Gargeyapuram Village. The survey reports states that
the object of wakf and conditions of ground of land under those title
deeds was for the support of the mosque. The extents of land and
the location of the lands in various survey numbers of the lands
HCJ&RRR,J
W.A. Nos.1044, 1138 of 2023 & 28 of 2024
contained in the title deeds were also set out in the report. These
title deeds are deeds which were issued by the Inam Commissioner
from 1862 onwards, after verifying the situation on the ground and
as a method of confirming the extent and location of land, apart
from various other details relating to the land which had been
granted as an Inam, earlier. The stand of the appellant is that the
Title deeds as well as the Inam Fair Register are not traceable. This
leaves only the Inam issue register, in which some details about the
Inams, which have been issued, are set out.
19. The extents of land set out against each title deed and
the survey numbers in which the said land is available, as set out in
the survey report of the Commissioner dated 24.04.1956, is now
replicated in the Errata notification, with one change. Title deed
No.3726 set out in the original notification, has now been changed
to title deed No.3716. The said change would definitely form within
the scope of an Errata notification as the survey report records the
title deed No.3716 while the original notification recorded as 3726.
20. However, the Inam Issue Register of 1862 reads
differently. This register shows the title deed numbers, the person
to whom the title deed has been given, the purpose for which the
Inam had been given, the village within which the land under the
HCJ&RRR,J
W.A. Nos.1044, 1138 of 2023 & 28 of 2024
Inam is situated, the extent of land etc. The Inam Issue Register,
which has been certified by the Superintendent in the office of the
Chief Commissioner of Land Administration shows the details of the
title deeds numbers 3073, 3716 and 3718 in the following manner:
No. & Name of Discription of Name of Extent Assessm Quint- Reduc
Date of the Inam Village ent Rent tion
T.D Inamdars No twice
dry gr w Total Jo 2. t
d et di Re ag
nt re
ed
3073 The Religions Lanjabavi 0.54 - - 0.54 1-10.0
Manager Endowment
for the
time being
of the
Masjid
3716 The D.o of Religious Lanjabavi 236.52 0 0 236.52 250-4-0
Zilekhana endowment
Masjid
3718 The D.O of Munagalap 16.45 0 0 16.45 6-8-0
Zilekhana adu
Masjid
21. This register shows that only title deed No.3718 relates
to Munagalapdu Village, for an extent of Ac.16.45 cents while title
deed No.3716, for an extent of Ac.236.52 cents and title deed
No.3073, for an extent of Ac.0.54 cents are in another village or
location. In such a situation, the report of the Commissioner, dated
24.04.1956, locating the lands in Munagalapdau village, as the
lands mentioned in the said Title deeds, does not stand scrutiny.
Consequently, the Errata notification is localizing the land in
HCJ&RRR,J
W.A. Nos.1044, 1138 of 2023 & 28 of 2024
Munagalapadu village, while the title deeds, place the land in
another place. The contention of the appellant that the errata is
only a clarification of the existing wakf land cannot be accepted.
22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh
(Now State of Telangana) vs. A.P State Wakf Board and Others6
examined the scope and meaning of the word ―Errata‖ and more
specifically, in relation to the Wakf Act, 1995. The observations of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court which are relevant in this case are
paragraphs 153 and 154.
153. We would need to examine as to what is scope and
meaning of the word ―errata‖. ―Errata‖ is a term of French
origin which means a thing that should be corrected. It
means a mistake in printing or writing. Reference may be
made to a judgment reported as Parvati Devi v. State of U.P.,
(2007) 6 ALL LJ 50. It was held as under:-
―20. The word ―Erratum (French) means a mistake in
printing or writing; a note drawing attention to such a
mistake. A list of mistakes added at the end of a book. 21.
The word ―Errata‖ is a word of French origin and means ‗a
thing that should be corrected.' After a book has been
printed, it often happens that certain mistakes are found to
have been overlooked. In later editions, it is usual to insert,
a list of such mistakes and to point out the necessary
corrections. These are called ‗corrigenda'.
xxx xxx xxx
23. In Judicial Dictionary by Justice L.P. Singh and
Majumdar, 2nd Edition, page 552, while quoting the
following passage in Assam Rajyik Udyog Karmi Sangha v.
State of Assam, (1996) Gau. L.R. 236, (at page 241), the
word ―corrigendum‖ has been defined as follows:--
―The dictionary meaning of the word ―corrigendum‖ means
things to be correct. It means there must be an error and
there is a necessity to amend and rectify it. In the garb of
(2022) ALD 137
HCJ&RRR,J
W.A. Nos.1044, 1138 of 2023 & 28 of 2024
corrigendum, a rule cannot be altered and or changed, but
that is what appears to have been done in the instant case.
In order to alter or modify a rule the same procedure
adopted in making of the rule have to be gone through.‖
24. The meaning and application of the word ―corrigendum‖
has been considered by the Courts time and again. In
Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Dunlop India Ltd.,
(1994) 92 STC 571, this Court held that corrigendum is
issued to correct a mistake in the notification, therefore,
would relate back to the date of issuance of the original
notification.
25. In Piara Singh v. State of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 765 :
AIR 2000 SC 2352, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
there is no bar on issuing the corrigendum or ‗more
corrigenda' for correcting the arithmetical error.
Xxx xxx xxx
27. In view of the above, the legal position can be
summarised that a corrigendum can be issued only to
correct a typographical error or omission therein. However,
it is meant only to correct typographical/arithmetical
mistake. It cannot have the effect of law nor it can take
away the vested right of a person nor it can have the effect
of nullifying the rights of persons conferred by the law‖.
154. We find that in the facts of the present case, the Errata
notification is nothing but a fresh notification altogether.
Errata is a correction of a mistake. Hence, only arithmetical
and clerical mistakes could be corrected and the scope of
the notification could not be enlarged by virtue of an errata
notification. As against 5506 sq. yards of land notified as
wakf property in the year 1989, large area of 1654 acres
and 32 guntas of land could not be included under the guise
of an errata notification as it is not a case of clerical or
arithmetical mistake but inclusion of large area which could
not be done without conducting a proper Inquiry either
under Section 32(2) (n) read with Section 40 or on the basis
of survey report which was called by the State Government
by appointing a Survey Commissioner.
154. We find that in the facts of the present case, the Errata
notification is nothing but a fresh notification altogether.
Errata is a correction of a mistake. Hence, only arithmetical
and clerical mistakes could be corrected and the scope of
the notification could not be enlarged by virtue of an errata
notification. As against 5506 sq. yards of land notified as
wakf property in the year 1989, large area of 1654 acres
and 32 guntas of land could not be included under the guise
HCJ&RRR,J
W.A. Nos.1044, 1138 of 2023 & 28 of 2024
of an errata notification as it is not a case of clerical or
arithmetical mistake but inclusion of large area which could
not be done without conducting a proper Inquiry either
under Section 32(2) (n) read with Section 40 or on the basis
of survey report which was called by the State Government
by appointing a Survey Commissioner.
23. In this case, the Errata notification of including survey
numbers and extents of lands in other survey numbers of
Munagalapadu village on the basis of the survey report of the
Commissioner, 1956, has resulted in inclusion of lands in
Munagalapadu village while the Inam title deed, which is the basis
for the claim shows that these lands are in a different village or
location. Unless this anomaly is corrected or reconciled, it would not
be appropriate to permit such an errata to be continued.
24. On the question of whether errata can be issued on the
basis of a survey conducted under the 1954 Act, a learned Single
Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for
the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Gosula
Ramulu and Ors vs. A.P Wakf Board and Ors7 had held that actions
under the Wakf Act, 1954 would be saved only if they came within
the purview of Section 112 of the Wakf Act, 1995 which reads as
follows:
2017(5)ALD 298
HCJ&RRR,J
W.A. Nos.1044, 1138 of 2023 & 28 of 2024
112. Repeal and savings.--
(1) The Wakf Act, 1954 (29 of 1954) and the Wakf
(Amendment) Act, 1984 (69 of 1984) are hereby
repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any
action taken under the said Acts shall be deemed to have
been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of
this Act.
(3) If, immediately before the commencement of this Act,
in any State, there is in force in that State, any law which
corresponds to this Act that corresponding law shall
stand repealed:
Provided that such repeal shall not affect the previous
operation of that corresponding law, and subject thereto,
anything done or any action taken in the exercise of any
power conferred by or under the corresponding law shall
be deemed to have been done or taken in the exercise of
the powers conferred by or under this Act as if this Act
was in force on the day on which such things were done
or action was taken.
25. The learned Single Judge had held that the survey
report of the Commissioners, appointed under the Wakf Act, 1954
would not fall within the ambit of this provision and consequently
no action could be taken under the Wakf Act, 1995, on the basis of
such reports.
26. Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned senior Counsel appearing for
the appellants would rely upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Gosula Madanuri Sri Ram Chandra Murthy Vs.
Syed Jalal 2017 (13) SCC 174 (Paragraph 16 ) to contend that the
report of the Commissioner, would merge into the notification
HCJ&RRR,J
W.A. Nos.1044, 1138 of 2023 & 28 of 2024
issued in the Gazette, under the provisions of the Wakf Act, 1954
and consequently it would have to be treated as an Act which has
been completed and would fall within the ambit of Section 112 of the
Wakf Act, 1995. It is also submitted that the aforesaid Judgment of
the learned Single Judge, is the subject matter of an appeal which is
still pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana. In view of
the observations made above, that the Errata published by the
Government, cannot stand, the present question of whether the
survey report under the Wakf Act, 1954 could be used for an errata
notification under the Wakf Act, 1995 does not require to be
answered at this stage.
27. In the circumstances, these Writ Appeals are dismissed,
affirming the orders of the learned single judges, and for the
additional reasons set above. However, this would not preclude the
Wakf Board for demonstrating any claim or title over the said lands
in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall
stand closed.
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
RJS
HCJ&RRR,J
W.A. Nos.1044, 1138 of 2023 & 28 of 2024
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT APPEAL Nos.1044, 1138 OF 2023 & 28 of 2024
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
Dt: 17.10.2024
RJS
