Telangana High Court

Munawar Sultana, vs Gosula Ramulu, on 4 December, 2023

      THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                            AND
       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR


+ WRIT APPEAL Nos.683, 698, 1137, 1353, 1355, 1392,
1395, 1403, 1409, 1410, 1427, 1450 and 1753 of 2018

%    Date: 04.12.2023

#    Munawar Sultana and others.
                                                 ... Appellants
                           v.
$    Gosula Ramulu and others.
                                              ... Respondents


! Counsel for the appellants in W.A.Nos.683, 698, 1137, 1409, 1410,
                                  1450 and 1753 of 2018
                                  : Mr. Y.Srinivasa Murthy,
                                  learned Senior Counsel,
                                  representing Mr. Mir Masood Khan


! Counsel for the appellants in W.A.Nos.1353, 1355, 1392, 1395,
                                1403, 1427 of 2018
                                : Ms. Meenakshi Arora,
                                learned Senior Counsel,
                                representing Mr. Abu Akram,
                                learned Standing Counsel for
                                Telangana State Wakf Board


^ Counsel for the respondents    : Mr. A.Venkatesh,
                                    learned Senior Counsel,
                                   representing
                                   Mr. P.Sri Harsha Reddy and
                                   Mr. R.Sushanth Reddy
                                  Mr. Harender Pershad,
                                  learned Senior Counsel and
                                  Special Government Pleader
                                  attached to the office of
                                 learned Advocate General
                                        2




< GIST:

    HEAD NOTE:

? CASES REFERRED:

          1.   AIR 1964 SC 685
          2.   AIR 1954 SC 340
          3.   1957 SCC OnLine SC 39 : 1957 SCR 738 : AIR 1957 SC 529
          4.   AIR 1958 SC 1002
          5.   1964 SCC OnLine SC 13 : (1964) 6 SCR 654 : AIR 1964 SC 1419
          6. (1992) 4 SCC 61 : AIR 1993 SC 1225
          7. 1993 Supp (1) SCC 306 : AIR 1992 SC 1018
          8. (1998) 8 SCC 1
          9.   2001 SCC OnLine AP 952 : (2002) 1 ALD 67 : (2002) 2 ALT 534 (DB)
          10. (2008) 2 SCC 350
          11. (2009) 7 SCC 521
          12. (2010) 8 SCC 329
          13. (2010) 14 SCC 588
          14. (2011 SCC OnLine AP 323 : (2011) 5 ALD 407
          15. (2019) 2 SCC 329
          16. (2020) 8 SCC 129
          17. 2021 SCC OnLine SC 562
          18. (2022) 4 SCC 414
          19. AIR 1961 SC 838
          20. (1998) 2 SCC 642
          21. (2001) 8 SCC 528
          22. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 159
          23. (1996) 1 SCC 435
          24. 2002 SCC OnLine AP 16 : AIR 2002 AP 313
          25. (2017) 13 SCC 174
          26. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1653
          27. 1955 (1) SCR 893 : AIR 1955 SC 84
          28. (2006) 3 SCC 354
          29. (2017) 9 SCC 463
          30. (2008) 9 SCC 306
          31. (2004) 7 SCC 362
          32. (2006) 13 SCC 574
          33. (2012) 4 SCC 483
          34. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 159
          35. (1974) 2 SCC 706
                                       3




         THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                                    AND
         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR


  WRIT APPEAL Nos.683, 698, 1137, 1353, 1355, 1392,
1395, 1403, 1409, 1410, 1427, 1450 and 1753 of 2018

COMMON ORDER:

(Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)

These intra-court appeals emanate from the common

order dated 24.03.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge

by which the order dated 07.11.2006 passed by the Joint

Collector, Ranga Reddy District has been set aside and the

writ petitions have been allowed. In this order, the parties

are referred to as per their rankings before the learned

Single Judge.

(i) FACTS:

2. Facts giving rise to filing of these appeals briefly

stated are that one Gosula Muthaiah and Sama

Narasimham were in cultivating possession of land

measuring Acs.25.04 guntas each of survey Nos.113 to 120

of Karmanghat Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy

District (hereinafter referred to as 'subject land'). Late

Mohd. Miskeen was the inamdar of the subject land and

Mohd. Bikkan was one of the sons of aforesaid inamdar.

The rights of aforesaid Gosula Muthaiah and Sama Yadi

Reddy (hereinafter referred to as 'protected tenants') were

recognized as protected tenants under Sections 34 and 35

of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and

Agricultural Lands Act, 1950.

3. On the basis of an enquiry report dated 07.08.1965

submitted by the Commissioner of Wakfs in an enquiry

which was conducted under Section 4(4) of the Wakf Act,

1954, the State Government published a notification dated

27.07.2006 by which subject lands were declared as wakf

property.

4. The aforesaid notification dated 27.07.2006 was

subject matter of challenge in W.P.Nos.20868, 20869 and

20870 of 2006.

5. The legal heirs of the protected tenants filed an

application under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh

(Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (hereinafter

referred to as, 'the 1955 Act') before the Revenue Divisional

Officer, who inter alia held that the legal heirs of protected

tenants were in possession of the subject land on the date

of vesting of the land i.e., 20.07.1955 as well as

01.11.1973. It was further held that the classification of

the subject lands was changed from year to year without

any valid orders. However, the Revenue Divisional Officer

by order dated 08.05.1998 concluded that in view of the

inconsistency of entries in the revenue records, with regard

to the nature of the lands, the legal representatives of

protected tenants are not entitled to occupancy rights

certificate.

6. The aforesaid order passed by the Revenue Divisional

Officer was questioned by the legal heirs of the protected

tenants in an appeal under Section 24 of the 1955 Act

before the Joint Collector. The Joint Collector by an order

dated 07.11.2006 by placing reliance on the notification

dated 27.07.2006 issued by the State Government inter

alia held that the subject lands are wakf properties and

only an institution can be granted occupancy rights

certificate in view of the proviso to Section 4(1) of the 1955

Act and not individuals.

(ii) ORDER OF LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE:

7. The legal representatives of the protected tenants

have questioned the order passed by the Joint Collector in

W.P.Nos.24461, 24462, 24463 of 2006 and W.P.No.8140 of

2007. The learned Single Judge by an order dated

24.03.2017 inter alia held that the writ petitions are

maintainable notwithstanding the alternative remedy. It

was further held that common judgment in L.P.A. Nos.76

and 78 of 2000 and batch operates as res judicata and

binds the Wakf Board and the legal heirs of late

Mohd.Miskeen. The learned Single Judge set aside the

order dated 07.11.2006 passed by the Joint Collector,

Ranga Reddy District and remitted matter to the Revenue

Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy District to consider as to

who amongst the petitioners in the writ petitions are

entitled to occupancy rights certificate under the 1955 Act.

It was directed that neither the Andhra Pradesh Wakf

Board nor the legal heirs of the protected tenants shall be

allowed to participate in the said proceedings and the

proceedings shall be completed within a period of three

months. Accordingly, the writ petitions were allowed. In the

aforesaid factual background, these intra-court appeals

have been filed.

(iii) SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS IN W.A.No.683 OF 2018:

8. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants in

W.A.No.683 of 2018 while inviting the attention of this

Court to Sections 6, 7 and 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995 has

submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in

examining the validity of the notification dated 27.07.2006

declaring the subject land to be wakf property in a writ

petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is

further submitted that part of the property namely land

measuring Acs.8.13 guntas of survey No.115 was acquired

under the provisions of the Requisitioning and Acquisition

of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as

'the 1952 Act'). It is also submitted that on 13.08.1982, an

arbitrator was appointed under Section 8(1)(b) of the 1952

Act and an award dated 25.03.1985 was passed. The

Arbitrator held that the land measuring Acs.8.13 guntas of

survey No.115 is not a wakf property. It is contended that

there is no time limit for issuance of notification under

Section 5(2) of the Act and there is no delay in issuance of

notification dated 27.07.2006. It is further contended that

writ petitioners have no right rights in respect of land in

question. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance

has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in

State of Orissa vs. Ram Chandra Dev 1.

9. It is pointed out that the notification issued under the

1952 Act was challenged in a writ petition, namely

W.P.No.4684 of 1987, which was dismissed by an order

dated 10.07.1987 by a learned Single Judge of this Court.

It is further pointed out that the order passed by the

learned Single Judge was affirmed in an appeal by order

dated 10.11.1988 passed in W.A.No.1768 of 1987. It is also

pointed out that the aforesaid order of the Division Bench

has attained finality.

1 AIR 1964 SC 685

10. It is urged that the award dated 25.03.1985 is a

nullity, as under Section 8(1)(b) of the 1952 Act, only a

Judge of the High Court could be appointed as arbitrator,

whereas one Mr. Neeladri Rao, Presiding Officer of the

Labour Court, Hyderabad was appointed as an arbitrator.

It is contended that the learned Single Judge ought to have

appreciated that the issues raised in these writ petitions

have to be considered by the Wakf Tribunal. It is also

contended that the validity of the title deeds cannot be

adjudicated in a writ petition. In support of the said

submissions, reliance has been placed on the decisions in

Kiran Singh vs. Chaman Paswan 2, Sohan Lal vs. Union

of India 3, State of Mysore vs. Mysore Spg. & Mfg. Co.

Ltd. 4, Thansingh Nathmal vs. Supdt. of Taxes 5, Mohan

Pandey vs. Usha Rani Rajgaria (Smt.) 6, State of

Rajasthan vs. Bhawani Singh 7, Whirlpool Corpn. vs.

2 AIR 1954 SC 340 3 1957 SCC OnLine SC 39 : 1957 SCR 738 : AIR 1957 SC 529 4 AIR 1958 SC 1002 5 1964 SCC OnLine SC 13 : (1964) 6 SCR 654 : AIR 1964 SC 1419 6 (1992) 4 SCC 61 : AIR 1993 SC 1225 7 1993 Supp (1) SCC 306 : AIR 1992 SC 1018

Registrar of Trade Marks 8, Allauddin Charities and

Zakath Wakf vs. Hameed Ali 9, Chief Engineer, Hydel

Project vs. Ravinder Nath 10, Bhoruka Textiles Ltd. vs.

Kashmiri Rice Industries 11, Shalini Shyam Shetty vs.

Rajendra Shankar Patil 12, W.B.Wakf Board vs. Anis

Fatma Begum 13, Mir Qamar Hasan Razvi vs. A.P.State

Wakf Board 14, Smt.D.Suneela vs. Government of Andhra

Pradesh (Order dated 23.02.2012 in W.P.No.33738 of

2011), B.Shanker vs. A.P. State Wakf Board (order dated

25.04.2012 in W.P.No.11788 of 2012), Pilli Anjaneyulu

Yadav vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh (order dated

04.09.2012 in W.A.No.466 of 2012), Roshina T. vs. Abdul

Azeez K.T. 15, Indore Development Authority (LAPSE-5

J.) vs. Manoharlal 16, Shubhas Jain vs. Rajeshwari

Shivam 17, Rashid Wali Beg vs. Farid Pindari 18 and

8 (1998) 8 SCC 1 9 2001 SCC OnLine AP 952 : (2002) 1 ALD 67 : (2002) 2 ALT 534 (DB) 10 (2008) 2 SCC 350 11 (2009) 7 SCC 521 12 (2010) 8 SCC 329 13 (2010) 14 SCC 588 14 2011 SCC OnLine AP 323 : (2011) 5 ALD 407 15 (2019) 2 SCC 329 16 (2020) 8 SCC 129 17 2021 SCC OnLine SC 562 18 (2022) 4 SCC 414

M/s. Visweswara Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. The

Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation

Ltd. (Order dated 24.08.2023 in W.A.No.697 of 2023).

(iv) SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF WAKF BOARD:

11. Learned Senior Counsel for the Wakf Board while

referring to the revenue records between the period from

1839 to 1984 - 1985, submitted that the property in

question is a wakf property. It is pointed out that in the

year 1965, an enquiry was conducted by the Commissioner

of Wakfs, Hyderabad, into the nature of the subject land

wherein all the writ petitioners as well as their

predecessors-in-title were parties. A report was thereafter

prepared on 07.08.1965 which was not assailed by anyone

including the predecessors of the writ petitioners. It is

further pointed out that the Tahsildar, by an order dated

04.11.1969, recorded the fact that the predecessors-in-title

of the writ petitioners had accepted that the lands belong

to Masjid.

12. It is also contended that Mohd. Miskeen filed

petitions under the Atiyat Enquiries Act on 17.03.1979,

31.03.1979 and 03.03.1980 for sanction of Aityat

Succession Rights. It is submitted that the Revenue

Divisional Officer after perusal of the ryotwari patta

certificates, by an order dated 17.01.1981, held that the

same were in the nature of Darga Hazrat Shah Inayat. It is

further submitted that the award passed by the arbitrator

under the provisions of the 1952 Act was set aside by an

order dated 16.07.1999 in A.S.No.1603 of 1985. It is also

pointed out that the notifications issued under the 1952

Act were quashed vide order dated 10.07.1987 passed in

W.P.No.4684 of 1987.

13. It is contended that in a proceeding under Article 226

of the Constitution of India, the issue whether or not a

property is a wakf property cannot be adjudicated. It is

submitted that the disputed questions of title cannot in

any case be decided in a writ petition and the appropriate

remedy for the writ petitioners is to approach the Wakf

Tribunal under Section 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995. It is

further submitted that once the property is wakf property,

it is always a wakf property.

14. It is argued that the observations made in a

proceeding which is without jurisdiction does not amount

to res judicata. Therefore, the observations made in the

order dated 24.10.2005 passed in L.P.A.Nos.76 and 78 of

2000 by a Division Bench of this Court are of no assistance

to the writ petitioners. It is contended that Section 112 of

the Wakf Act, 1995, is widely worded and the proceeding

initiated under the 1954 Act is saved. It is further

contended that if the land is a wakf land, the question of

grant of occupancy rights does not arise. In support of the

aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on the

decisions of the Supreme Court in Chief Inspector of

Mines vs. Karam Chand Thapar 19, Sayyed Ali vs.

A.P.Wakf Board, Hyderabad 20 and T.N. Wakf Board vs.

Hathija Ammal 21.

19 AIR 1961 SC 838 20 (1998) 2 SCC 642 21 (2001) 8 SCC 528

(v) SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF WRIT PETITIONERS:

15. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the

writ petitioners while inviting the attention of this Court to

the relief claimed in the writ petitions submitted that the

writ petitioners had only assailed the validity of notification

dated 27.07.2006 issued under Section 5(2) of 1995 Act

notifying the lands as the wakf property. It is further

submitted that in the writ petitions, no disputed questions

of fact arise for consideration. It is also submitted that a

survey was conducted on 07.08.1965 and the notification

impugned in the writ petitions was issued after an

inordinate delay of 41 years for which no explanation has

been offered. It is contended that the aforesaid notification

has been issued solely with a view to interdict the

judgment of this Court. It is contended that the Wakf

Tribunal cannot decide the issue of validity of the

notification and the decision in Rashid Wali Beg (supra)

has been subsequently clarified by the Supreme Court in

State of Andhra Pradesh (Now State of Telangana) vs.

A.P. State Wakf Board 22. It is urged that under Section

8(1)(b) of the 1952 Act, any person qualified to be

appointed as a High Court Judge can be appointed as an

arbitrator. No factual foundation in the pleadings has been

made with regard to challenge of the award on this ground.

It is also argued that against the award passed by the

arbitrator, no appeal was preferred by the Wakf Board and

it has accepted the award passed by the arbitrator.

16. It is argued that a Division Bench of this Court vide

judgment dated 10.11.1988 in W.A.No.1768 of 1987 held

that the Mutawallis have no locus. It is further argued that

only a completed action under Section 112 of the Wakf Act,

1995, is protected. It is contended that preparation of

survey report is an inchoate action and the same is not

saved under Section 112 of the Wakf Act, 1995, and

therefore, does not enure to the benefit of either the

Mutawallis or the Wakf Board. It is further contended that

in previous rounds of litigation, it has already been

concluded that the subject land is not wakf land and

22 2022 SCC OnLine SC 159

liberty was given by a Division Bench of this Court only

with regard to nature of inam and not otherwise.

17. It is argued that the Supreme Court while dismissing

the special leave petition vide order dated 26.10.2007 only

granted the liberty to Mutawalli to urge all the contentions

before the Joint Collector before whom the appeal is stated

to be pending. In support of the aforesaid submissions,

reliance has been placed on the order dated 03.10.2023 in

W.A.No.945 of 2023 and the decision of the Supreme Court

in State of Andhra Pradesh (Now State of Telangana) vs.

A.P. State Wakf Board (supra). Learned Senior Counsel

has also argued that the decisions of the Supreme Court in

Hathija Ammal (supra) and Sayyed Ali (supra) are

distinguishable and do not apply to the facts of instant

cases. It is also contended that void order needs to be

challenged before the higher forum and in case the same is

not challenged, it binds the party. He placed reliance on

the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Kerala v.

M.K. Kunhikannan Nambiar Manjeri Manikoth 23.



23 (1996) 1 SCC 435





(vi)     SUBMISSIONS      ON       BEHALF    OF    LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVES:

18. Learned counsel for the legal representatives of

respondent No.5 in W.A.No.1355 of 2018, W.A.No.1410 of

2018; the legal representatives of respondent No.6 in

W.A.No.1409 of 2018, W.A.No.1427 of 2018; and the legal

representatives of respondent No.13 in W.A.No.1753 of

2018 has submitted that the Wakf Board had placed

reliance on a judgment passed in A.S.No.1603 of 1985

which was set aside in L.P.A.Nos.76 and 78 of 2000,

whereas in the instant appeals, reliance is placed on

A.S.No.1603 of 1985. It is, therefore, submitted that the

Wakf Board cannot be permitted to approbate and

reprobate.

(vii) SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER:

19. Learned Senior Counsel and Special Government

Pleader has adopted the submissions made by the learned

Senior Counsel for the Wakf Board.

(viii) REJOINDER SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF WAKF BOARD:

20. Learned Senior Counsel for the Wakf Board by way of

rejoinder submitted that the provisions of Sections 4, 5 and

6 of the Wakf Act, 1954, are pari materia to Sections 4, 5

and 6 of the Wakf Act, 1995. It is also pointed out that the

judgment in the writ appeal dated 10.11.1988 is without

jurisdiction and the same only pertains to the land

measuring Acs.8.13 guntas of survey No.115. It is also

pointed out that there is no adjudication with regard to the

nature of lands in respect of Survey Nos.113 to 120. It is

also pointed out that the decision of the learned Single

Judge in B.Gowra Reddy vs. Government of Andhra

Pradesh 24 is distinguishable and does not apply to the

facts of the case.

(ix) RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS:

21. We have considered the submissions made on both

sides and perused the record. Before proceeding further, it

is apposite to take note of relevant statutory provisions.

24 2002 SCC OnLine AP 16 : AIR 2002 AP 313

The Wakf Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1954

Act') was enacted to provide for better administration and

supervision of wakfs. The 1954 Act was repealed by the

Wakf Act, 1995 which was enacted with an object to

provide for better administration of wakfs and matters

connected therewith.

24. Section 4 of the 1954 Act deals with survey, whereas

Section 5 provides for publication of list of wakfs. Section 6

deals with disputes regarding wakfs. The relevant

provisions of the 1954 Act and the Wakf Act, 1995 prior to

its amendment by Act No.27 of 2013 dated 01.11.2013 are

extracted below for the facility of reference:-

        Wakf Act, 1954                       Wakf Act, 1995

1.      Section         4        - 1. Section 4 - 4. Preliminary
"4.Preliminary     survey       of survey of Wakfs--(1) The State
wakfs.       (1) The          State Government may, by notification
Government        may,          by in the Official Gazette, appoint for

notification in the Official the State a Survey Commissioner Gazette, appoint for the of Wakfs and as many Additional State a Survey or Assistant Survey Commissioner of Wakfs Commissioners of Wakfs as may and as many Additional or be necessary for the purpose of

Assistant Survey making a survey of Wakfs existing Commissioners of Wakfs as in the State at the date of the may be necessary for the commencement of this Act.

purpose of making a survey (2) All Additional and Assistant of wakfs existing in the Survey Commissioners of Wakfs State at the date of the shall perform their functions commencement of this Act. under this Act under the general (2) All Additional and supervision and control of the Assistant Survey Survey Commissioner of Wakfs.

Commissioners        of   Wakfs
shall        perform        their (3)    The    Survey     Commissioner

functions under this Act shall, after making such inquiry under the general as he may consider necessary, supervision and control of submit his report, in respect the Survey Commissioner of Wakfs existing at the date of the of Wakfs. commencement of this Act in the (3) The Survey State or any part thereof, to the Commissioner shall, after State Government containing the making such inquiry as he following particulars, namely:--

may consider necessary, (a) the number of Wakfs in the submit his report at the State showing the Shia Wakfs and date of the commencement Sunni Wakfs separately; of this Act in the State or

(b) the nature and objects of any part thereof, to the each Wakf;

State Government

particulars, namely, (a) the

(d) the amount of land revenue, number of wakfs in the cesses, rates and taxes payable in State, or as the case may

be, any part thereof, respect of each Wakf; showing the Shia wakfs (e) the expenses incurred in the and Sunni wakfs realisation of the income and the separately; (b) the nature pay or other remuneration of the and objects of each wakf; mutawalli of each Wakf; and

(f) such other particulars relating property comprised in each to each Wakf as may be wakf; (d) the amount of prescribed.

land revenue, cesses, rates and taxes payable in (4) The Survey Commissioner respect of such property;

shall, while making any inquiry,

(e) the expenses incurred in have the same powers as are the realisation of the vested in a civil Court under the income and the pay or Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of other remuneration of the 1908) in respect of the following mutawalli of each wakf;

matters, namely:--

and (f) such other

(a) summoning and examining any particulars relating to each witness;

wakf as may be prescribed.

(b) requiring the discovery and (4) The Survey production of any document;

Commissioner shall, while making any inquiry, have (c) requisitioning any public record the same powers as are from any court or office; vested in a civil court (d) issuing, commissions for the under the Code of Civil examination of any witness or Procedure, 1908 (5 of accounts;

1908), in respect of the (e) making any local inspection or following matters, local investigation;

namely:--          (a) summoning
                                          (f) such other matters as may be





and        examining             any prescribed.
witness;    (b) requiring         the

discovery and production of (5) If, during any such inquiry, any document; any dispute arises as to whether a

(c) requisitioning any particular Wakf is a Shia Wakf or public record from any Sunni Wakf and there are clear court or office; (d) issuing indications in the deed of Wakf as commissions for the to its nature, the dispute shall be examination of any witness decided on the basis of such deed. or accounts; (e) making any local inspection or local (6) The State Government may, by investigation; (f) any other notification in the Official Gazette, matter which may be direct the Survey Commissioner to prescribed. (5) If, during make a second or subsequent any such inquiry, any survey of Wakf properties in the dispute arises as to State and the provisions of sub- whether a particular wakf sections (2), (3), (4) and (5) shall is a Shia wakf or Sunni apply to such survey as they apply wakf and there are clear to a survey directed under sub- indications in the deed of section (1):

wakf as to its nature, the dispute shall be decided on Provided that no such second or the basis of such deed. subsequent survey shall be made until the expiry of a period of twenty years from the date on which the report in relation to the immediately previous survey was submitted under sub-section (3):

2. Section 5 - Publication 2. Section 5 - 5. Publication of of list of wakfs.-- (1) On list of Wakfs:.--(1) On receipt of a receipt of a report under report under sub-section (3) of sub-section (3) of section 4, section 4, the State Government the State Government shall shall forward a copy of the same forward a copy of the same to the Board.

to the Board. (2) The Board shall examine the (2) The Board shall report forwarded to it under sub- examine the report section (1) and publish in the forwarded to it under sub- Official Gazette a list of Sunni section (1) and publish in Wakfs or Shia Wakfs, in the State, the Official Gazette a list of whether in existence at the wakfs existing in the State, commencement of this Act or or as the case may be, the coming into existence thereafter, part of the State ------------- to which the report released, and

------------- 1. Subs. by Act containing such other particulars 38 of 1969, s.4, for "in the as may be prescribed.

State"     (with    retrospective
effect). 2. Subs. By s.5,
ibid., for "existing in the
State"     (with    retrospective
effect).    108 to which the
report        relates,       and
containing such particulars
as may be prescribed.



3. Section 6 - 6. Disputes 3.             Section    6    -   6.     Disputes
regarding      wakfs.--      (1) If regarding Wakfs.--(1)             If         any
any        question       arises question       arises        whether             a





whether        a    particular particular             property       specified
property specified as wakf as Wakf                 property    in    the    list

property in a list of wakfs of Wakfs is Wakf property or not published under sub- or whether a Wakf specified in section (2) of section 5 is such list is a Shia Wakf or wakf property or not or Sunni Wakf, the Board or the whether a wakf specified in Mutawalli of the Wakf or any such list is a Shia wakf or person interested therein may Sunni wakf, the Board or institute a suit in a Tribunal for the mutawalli of the wakf the decision of the question and or any person interested the decision of the Tribunal in therein may institute a suit respect of such matter shall be in a civil court of final:

competent jurisdiction for Provided that no such suit the decision of the question shall be entertained by the and the decision of the civil Tribunal after the expiry of one court in respect of such year from the date of the matter shall be final: publication of the list of Wakfs:

Provided that no such suit Explanation: For the purposes of shall be entertained by the this Section and Section 7, the civil court after the expiry expression "any person interested of one year from the date of therein", shall, in relation to any the publication of the list of property specified as Wakf wakfs under sub-section (2) property in the list of Wakfs of Section 5: Provided published after the further that in the case of commencement of the Act, shall the list of wakfs relating to include also every person who, any part of the State and though not interested in the Wakf published or purporting to concerned, is interested in such

have been published before property and to whom a the commencement of the reasonable opportunity had been Wakf (Amendment) Act, afforded to represent his case by 1969, (38 of 1969.) Such notice served on him in that behalf suit may be entertained by during the course of the relevant the civil court within the enquiry under Section 4. period of one year from such commencement. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), no (2) Notwithstanding proceeding under this Act in anything contained in sub- respect of any Wakf shall be section (1), no proceeding stayed by reason only of the under this Act in respect of pendency of any such suit or of any wakf shall be stayed by any appeal or other proceeding reason only of the arising out of such suit.

pendency of any such suit or of any appeal or other (3) The Survey Commissioner shall proceeding arising out of not be made a party to any suit such suit. under sub-section (1) and no suit, prosecution or other legal (3) The Survey proceeding shall lie against him in Commissioner shall not be respect of anything which is in made a party to any suit good faith done or intended to be under sub-section (1) and done in pursuance of this Act or no suit, prosecution or any rules made thereunder. other legal proceeding shall lie against him in respect of (4) The list of Wakfs shall, unless anything which is in good it is modified in pursuance of a faith done or intended to be decision of the Tribunal under

done in pursuance of this sub-section (1), be final and Act or any rules made conclusive.

thereunder.

(4) The      list      of        wakfs (5)      On       and         from      the
published           under         sub- commencement of this Act in a
section (2) of Section 5 State,                  no    suit    or    other    legal

shall, unless it is modified proceeding shall be instituted or in pursuance of a decision commenced in a court in that of the civil court under State in relation to any question sub-section (1), be final referred to in sub-section (1). and conclusive.

23. The Supreme Court in Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra

Murthy vs. Syed Jalal 25 has considered Sections 4, 5 and

6 of the 1954 Act as well as the 1995 Act and has held that

Sections 4 to 6 contained in both the Acts are almost pari

materia with each other. Paras 12, 13 and 16 are extracted

below for the facility of reference:

12. Section 4 of the 1954 Act, empowered the State Government to appoint a State Commissioner, and as many Additional and Assistant Survey Commissioners of Wakf as may be necessary, by a notification in the Official Gazette for the purpose of making survey of wakf properties existing within the State. The Survey Commissioner after making a

25 (2017) 13 SCC 174

survey of wakf properties would submit his report to the State Government containing various particulars as mentioned in sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 4 of the Act. Section 5 of the 1954 Act mandated that on receipt of such report from the Survey Commissioner made under sub-section (3) of Section 4, the State Government should forward a copy of the same to the Wakf Board. The Wakf Board would examine the report forwarded to it and publish in Official Gazette, the list of wakfs in the State. For resolving the disputes regarding wakfs, Section 6 of the 1954 Act, provided jurisdictional civil court as a forum and decision of civil court in respect of such matters should be final. It was also clarified that no such suit should be entertained by the civil court, after the expiry of one year from the date of publication of the list of wakfs as per sub-section (2) of Section 5. Sub-

section (4) of Section 6 stated that the list of wakfs published under sub-section (2) of Section 5 shall be final and conclusive unless such list is modified on the direction of the civil court.

13. The provisions found in Sections 5 and 6 of the Wakf Act, 1995 and the 1954 Act are almost akin to each other. However, the change brought in by Parliament under the 1995 Act is that, in the case of dispute regarding wakfs, the aggrieved party needs to approach the Wakf Tribunal constituted under Section 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995 and consequently, the jurisdiction of the civil court is taken away. Except the aforesaid change, no other substantial modification is found in those provisions. Section 7 of

the 1995 Act empowers the Tribunal to determine the disputes, regarding auqaf/wakfs, the particulars of which are specified therein.

16. Thus, it is amply clear that the conducting of survey by the Survey Commissioner and preparing a report and forwarding the same to the State or the Wakf Board precedes the final act of notifying such list in the Official Gazette by the State under the 1995 Act (it was by the Board under the 1954 Act). As mentioned supra, the list would be prepared by the Survey Commissioner after making due enquiry and after valid survey as well as after due application of mind. The enquiry contemplated under sub-section (3) of Section 4 is not merely an informal enquiry but a formal enquiry to find out at the grass root level, as to whether the property is a wakf property or not. Thereafter the Wakf Board will once again examine the list sent to it with due application of its mind and only thereafter the same will be sent to the Government for notifying the same in the Gazette. Since the list is prepared and published in the Official Gazette by following the aforementioned procedure, there is no scope for the plaintiff to get the matter reopened by generating some sort of doubt about Survey Commissioner's Report. Since the Surveyor's Report was required to be considered by the State Government as well as the Wakf Board (as the case may be), prior to finalisation of the list of properties to be published in the Official Gazette, it was not open for the High Court to conclude that the Surveyor's Report will have to be reconsidered. On the contrary,

the Surveyor's Report merges with the gazette notification published under Section 5 of the Wakf Act.

(x) ISSUES:

24. After noticing the provisions of the 1954 Act and the

1995 Act, we may advert to the issues which arise for

consideration in these appeals. The following issues arise

for consideration in these appeals:

(1) Whether the enquiry report dated 07.08.1965

prepared under Section 4(4) of the 1954 Act is saved under

Section 112 of the Wakf Act, 1995?

(2) Whether on the basis of the enquiry report dated

07.08.1965, a notification after a period of 41 years

declaring the subject land to be wakf property can be

issued under Section 5(2) of the Wakf Act, 1995?

(3) Whether issue with regard to validity of the

notification dated 27.07.2006 issued by the Wakf Board

can be examined by the Wakf Tribunal under the then

Section 6 of the Wakf Act, 1995 in vogue at the relevant

time?

(4) Whether issue with regard to validity of the

notification dated 27.07.2006 can be examined in a writ

petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? and

(5) Whether the common Judgement dated

24.10.2005 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in

L.P.A.Nos.76 and 78 of 2000 operates as res judicata in

respect of land measuring Acs.8.13 guntas bearing Survey

Nos.113 to 120 of Karmanghat Village, Hayathnagar Taluk,

Ranga Reddy District against the legal representatives of

late Mohd.Miskeen, who was the erstwhile inamdar and

the Wakf Board?

(xi) ANALYSIS:

25. We shall now proceed to deal with the issues ad

seriatim.

Issue (1): Whether the enquiry report dated

07.08.1965 prepared under Section 4(4) of the 1954

Act is saved under Section 112 of the Wakf Act, 1995?

26. The making of survey under Section 4 of the Act is

not a mere administrative act but it is to be informed by a

quasi-judicial inquiry. The surveyor has the power to find

out whether a particular is a wakf and Commissioner has

to determine the aspects which have been mentioned in

Section 4 of the Act (see Maharashtra State Board of

Wakfs vs. Shaikh Yusuf Bhai Chawla26). The effect of

repeal of a statute is to destroy all inchoate rights and all

causes of action which may have arisen under the

provisions of repealed statute. When repeal is followed by a

fresh legislation on the same subject, the Court

undoubtedly has to look into the provisions of the new Act,

but only for the purpose of determining whether they

indicate a different intention. The line of enquiry would be,

not whether the new Act expressly keeps alive old rights

and liabilities, but whether it manifests an intention to

destroy them (see State of Punjab vs. Mohar Singh 27).

The aforesaid view was reiterated with approval in

Gammon India Limited vs. Special Chief Secretary 28,

and it was held that the issue with regard to the

continuation of pending proceedings under a repealed

statute depends either under the savings contained in the

26 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1653 27 1955 (1) SCR 893 : AIR 1955 SC 84 28 (2006) 3 SCC 354

Repeal Act or under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act.

It was further held that question whether a right was

acquired or a liability incurred under a statute before its

repeal in each case depends on the construction of a

statute and the facts of a particular case. It was also held

that when there is a repeal of an enactment and

simultaneous

re-enactment, the re-enactment has to be considered as

reaffirmation of the old law and the provisions of the

repealed Act which are thus re-enacted continue in force

uninterruptedly unless the re-enacted enactment manifests

an intention incompatible with or contrary to the

provisions of the repealed Act. The aforesaid view was

again reiterated with approval in State of Haryana vs.

Hindustan Construction Company Limited 29.

27. Section 112 of the 1995 Act, which deals with repeal

and savings, is extracted below for the facility of reference:

112. Repeal and savings:- (1) The Wakf Act, 1954 (29 of 1954) and the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 (69 of 1984) are hereby repealed.

29 (2017) 9 SCC 463

(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.

28. In the instant case, the repeal of an enactment,

namely 1954 Act is accompanied with simultaneous re-

enactment namely the 1995 Act. In Madanuri Sri Rama

Chandra Murthy (supra), the Supreme Court has held that

the provisions of Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the 1954 Act as

well as the 1995 Act are substantially similar. Therefore,

the legislative intention can safely be inferred as re-

affirmation of the old law.

29. It is pertinent to note that scope and effect of Section

112(2) of the 1995 Act was considered by the Supreme

Court in T.Kaliamurthi v. Five Gori Thaikkal Wakf 30 and

it was held that Section 112 of the Act is in conformity with

Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, which also provides

that a repeal shall not affect any right, privilege, obligation

or liability acquired or incurred under the repealed

enactment unless a contrary intention appears. Thus,

under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act and Section

112 of the Wakf Act, prior operation of the repealed

enactment or the legal proceedings or remedies instituted,

continued or enforced are saved.

30. On perusal of Section 112(2) of the 1995 Act, the

legislative intent to save anything done or any action taken

under the 1954 Act is manifest. Therefore, anything done

or any action taken under the 1954 Act is saved and shall

be deemed to have been done or taken under the

corresponding provisions of the 1995 Act. The re-enacted

enactment i.e., the 1995 Act does not contain any intention

30 (2008) 9 SCC 306

incompatible with or contrary to the provisions of the

Repealed Act. Therefore, the survey conducted under

Section 4 of the 1954 Act is saved under Section 112(2) of

the 1995 Act. Accordingly, the first issue is answered in the

affirmative.

Issue (2): Whether on the basis of the enquiry report

dated 07.08.1965, a notification after a period of 41

years declaring the subject land to be wakf property

can be issued under Section 5 of the Wakf Act, 1995?

31. Section 4(3) of the 1954 Act does not provide for a

time limit within which the Commissioner after conducting

the enquiry, has to submit the report to the State

Government. It is equally true that Section 5 of the Act

does not provide for time limit for issue of publication of

list of wakfs. However, the Commissioner of Wakfs and the

Wakf Board exercise the statutory function while preparing

the enquiry report and publishing the same as list of wakfs

under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act respectively. A mere

survey carried under Section 4 of the 1954 Act does not

extinguish the rights in a property. It is only on publication

of notification under Section 5(2) of the Act, the rights of a

person in a property are extinguished. Therefore, the

statutory powers have to be exercised within a reasonable

period as rights in a property may accrue after survey

which may get extinguished on publication of the survey.

32. Even otherwise, it is trite law that where a statute

does not provide for time limit for doing an act, such an act

has to be done within a reasonable time, and what would

be reasonable time has to be decided in the facts and

circumstances of the act (See: Meher Rusi Dalal vs. Union

of India 31, P.K.Sreekantan vs. P.Sreekumaran Nair32

and K.B.Nagur vs. Union of India 33).

33. The Supreme Court in the State of Andhra Pradesh

now the State of Telangana vs. Andhra Pradesh Wakf

Board 34 has disapproved the action of issuing an errata

notification after a lapse of 17 years from the date of first

notification.

31 (2004) 7 SCC 362 32 (2006) 13 SCC 574 33 (2012) 4 SCC 483 34 2022 SCC OnLine SC 159

34. In the instant case, the enquiry report was prepared

on 07.08.1965 whereas the notification under Section 5 of

the Act dated 27.07.2006 has been issued after a period of

41 years. The notification dated 27.07.2006 extinguishes

the rights of the persons in the subject property. The

statutory powers have to be exercised within a reasonable

time. In the instant case, the notification dated 27.07.2006

which has the effect of extinguishing the rights of

individuals in the property has been issued after an

inordinate delay of 41 years for which no explanation has

been offered. The exercise of statutory powers after a period

of 41 years without any explanation for the same cannot be

said to be exercise of statutory powers within a reasonable

time and therefore, the same is vitiated in law. Accordingly,

the second issue is answered.

Issue (3): Whether issue with regard to validity of the

notification dated 27.07.2006 issued by the Wakf

Board can be examined by the Wakf Tribunal under

the then Section 6 of the Wakf Act, 1995 in vogue at

the relevant time?

35. Before dealing with the aforesaid issue, it is apposite

to take note of the statutory provision, namely Section 6 of

the Wakf Act, 1995 as it stood at the time of issuance of

notification dated 27.07.2006 prior to its Amendment Act

No.27 of 2013 dated 01.11.2013.

6. Disputes regarding Wakfs:- (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as Wakf property in the list of Wakfs is wakf property or not or whether a Wakq specified in such list is a Shia Wakf or Sunni Wakf, the Board or the Mutawalli of the Wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a Tribunal for the decision of the question and the decision of the Tribunal in respect of such matter shall be final;

Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the Tribunal after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of Wakfs:

Explanation:- For the purposes of this section and section 7, the expression "any person interested therein", shall, in relation to any property specified as wakf property in the list of wakfs published after the commencement of this Act, shall include also every person who, though not interested in the wakf concerned, is interested in such property and to whom a reasonable opportunity had been afforded to represent his case by notice served on him in that behalf during the course of the relevant inquiry under Section 4.

(2) Not withstanding anything contained in sub-

section (1), no proceeding under this Act in respect of any wakf shall be stayed by reason only of the pendency of any such suit or of any appeal or other proceeding arising out of such suit.

(3) The Survey Commissioner shall not be made a party to any suit under sub-section (1) and no suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against him in respect of anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done in pursuance of this Act or any rules made thereunder.

(4) The list of Wakfs shall, unless it is modified in pursuance of a decision or the Tribunal under sub- section (1), be final and conclusive.

(5) On and from the commencement of this Act in a State, no suit or other legal proceeding shall be instituted or commenced in a court in that State in relation to any question referred to in sub-section (1).

36. Thus, it is evident that dispute whether or not

property is a wakf property in the list of wakfs and whether

the same belongs to Shia or Sunni wakf, the Board or the

Mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may

institute a suit in a Tribunal for adjudication of the

aforesaid question. Section 6 has to be read with Section

3(k) of the Act which defines the expression 'person

interested in a wakf' and reads as under:

3 (k) "person interested in a wakf" means any person who is entitled to receive any pecuniary or other benefit from the wakf and includes-

(i) any person who has a right to workship or to perform any religious rite in a mosque, idgah, imambara, dargah, khanqah, peerkhana and karbala, maqbara, graveyard or any other religious institution connected with the wakf or to participate in any religious or charitable institution under the wakf;

(ii) the wakif and any descendant of the wakf and the Mutawalli;

37. Thus, if provisions of Section 6 and 3(k) of the Wakf

Act, 1995, prior to its Amendment, are read in conjunction,

it is evident that the petitioners are not the persons

interested in a wakf. It is pertinent to mention that at the

relevant point of time when the notification was issued on

27.07.2006, the petitioners could not have availed of the

remedy under Section 6. However, subsequently by

Amendment Act No.27 of 2013 dated 01.11.2013, the

words 'any person interested' had been substituted by 'any

person aggrieved'. But, at the relevant time, the remedy of

filing a suit before the Wakf Tribunal was not available to

the petitioners. Accordingly, the third issue is answered in

the negative.

Issue (4): Whether issue with regard to validity of the

notification dated 27.07.2006 can be examined in a

writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India?

38. A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in

Babubhai Muljibhai Patel vs. Nandlal Khodidas Barot35

held that the High Court is not deprived of its jurisdiction

to entertain a petition under Article 226 merely because in

considering the petitioner's right of relief, questions of fact

may fall to be determined. In a petition under Article 226,

the High Court has jurisdiction to try issues both of fact

and law. In paragraph 9, it was held as under:

9. On behalf of the appellant his learned counsel, Mr Amin, has at the outset contended that as the dispute between the parties in this case involved questions of fact, the High Court should not have entertained the writ petition filed by Respondent 1 but should have referred the parties to a separate suit.

This contention, in our opinion, is not well founded. No plea was admittedly taken in the return filed on behalf of the appellant in reply to the writ petition that Respondent 1 should be directed to seek his remedy

35 (1974) 2 SCC 706

by means of a suit because of disputed questions of fact. In the absence of such a plea, the appellant, in our opinion, cannot be heard to say that the High Court should have relegated Respondent 1 to the remedy of a suit. Apart from that we find that the term of the appellant as the President of the municipality would have expired in 1975. The trial of a suit, in the very nature of things, would have taken considerable time. Appeal and second appeal would have also been filed by the unsuccessful party in the case. Had Respondent 1 been directed to seek his remedy by way of a suit, the relief secured by Respondent 1 even if he had succeeded in the suit would have been wholly illusory because by the time Respondent 1 would succeed in the litigation, the term of the office of the President would have either already expired or be about to expire. The appellant in that event would have continued as the President of the municipality even though he had ceased to enjoy the confidence of the requisite number of councillors and they had passed a motion of no confidence against him. The entire concept of a democratic institution would thus have been set at naught. We agree with the observations of the High Court that the purpose underlying the petition would have been completely defeated in case Respondent 1 had been relegated to the ordinary remedy of a suit and that such remedy was neither adequate nor efficacious.

39. The power of this Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India can be exercised not only for

enforcement of fundamental rights but for any other

purpose as well. In the State of Andhra Pradesh now the

State of Telangana vs. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board

(supra), the High Court had relegated the parties to an

alternative remedy of filing a regular suit before the Wakf

Tribunal. The Supreme Court in paragraph 116 held that

the High Court erred in law to relegate the parties to the

statutory remedy. Paragraph 116 reads as under:

116. We find that the High Court has examined the merits of the contention raised including the documents filed so as not to accept the contentions of the State. Though the High Court has expressed the same to be prima facie view, but in fact, nothing was left to suggest that it was not a final order as far as the State is concerned with the order of the dismissal of its writ petition. Even otherwise, we find that the questions raised before this Court are the interpretation of the statues, the Farmans issued by Sovereign from time to time and the interpretation of the document to the facts of the present case. It is not a case where any oral evidence would be necessary or is available now. In fact, that was not even the suggestion before this Court. Since the question was in respect of interpretation of the statutes and the documents primarily issued by the Sovereign, the matter needs to be examined on merits as detailed arguments have been addressed by learned counsel for the parties. Thus, we find that the High Court

erred in law, in the facts and circumstances of the case, to relegate the parties to the statutory remedy.

40. An enquiry report as well as the notification were

issued in exercise of statutory powers under Sections 4

and 5 of the Wakf Act. In the instant case, no disputed

question of fact arises for consideration. Therefore, in the

facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that

issue with regard to the validity of the notification dated

27.07.2006 which does not depend on determination of

any disputed questions of fact could have been examined

by the learned Single Judge in writ petitions under Article

226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the fourth

issue is answered.

Issue (5): Whether the common Judgement dated

24.10.2005 passed by a Division Bench of this Court

in L.P.A.Nos.76 and 78 of 2000 operates as res

judicata in respect of land measuring Acs.8.13 guntas

bearing Survey Nos.113 to 120 of Karmanghat Village,

Hayathnagar Taluk, Ranga Reddy District against the

legal representatives of late Mohd.Miskeen, who was

the erstwhile inamdar and the Wakf Board?

41. The Award dated 25.03.1985 was passed under

Section 8 of the 1952 Act. The validity of the aforesaid

Award was challenged in A.S.No.1603 of 1985. A learned

Single Judge by an order dated 06.07.1999 set aside the

Award passed under the 1952 Act and held that land

measuring Acs.8.13 guntas bearing Survey Nos.113 to 120

of Karmanghat Village, Hayathnagar Taluk, Ranga Reddy

District is a wakf property. The aforesaid order passed by

the learned Single Judge was assailed by the legal

representatives of inamdar in L.P.A.Nos.76 and 78 of 2000.

It is pertinent to note that the Wakf Board was also a party

in the aforesaid appeals. A Division Bench of this Court by

an order dated 24.10.2005 inter alia held that the land

measuring Acs.8.13 guntas bearing Survey Nos.113 to 120

of Karmanghat Village, Hayathnagar Taluk, Ranga Reddy is

not a service inam land and set aside the order passed by

the learned Single Judge. The relevant extract of the

aforesaid order reads as under:

It is thus clear that the entries in the official gazette describing the property as wakf, if allowed to become final, alone can be treated as conclusive and not the preliminary survey report submitted by the Commissioner of the wakfs. It is therefore not possible to hold the property to be a wakf by placing exclusive reliance upon Ex.A-4. The submission made in this regard is accordingly rejected.

The learned Single Judge while reversing the award passed by the learned Arbitrator altogether ignored Ex.A-41 muntakhab which was relied upon by the learned Arbitrator wherein it is mentioned that the land in question is inam land. That a fair reading of the recitals of muntakab does not suggest it to be a service inam land.

42. Against the aforesaid order of the Division Bench,

Special Leave Petitions, namely S.L.P. (C) CC Nos.10058 -

10062 of 2007 were filed by legal representatives of Mohd.

Miskeen, inamdar. Thus, the Wakf Board did not file any

Special Leave Petition against the order dated 24.10.2005

passed by a Division Bench of this Court. Thus, the Wakf

Board accepted the finding recorded by the Division Bench

of this Court that part of the subject land i.e., land

measuring Acs.8.13 guntas bearing Survey Nos.113 to 120

of Karmanghat Village, Hayathnagar Taluk, Ranga Reddy is

not service inam land. Even otherwise, the aforesaid order

passed by the Division Bench of this Court attained finality

as Special Leave Petitions preferred by the legal

representatives of Mohd. Miskeen, inamdar namely S.L.P.

dated 26.10.2007 by the Supreme Court. The aforesaid

order reads as under:

Inordinate delay in filing these petitions has not been explained property. Application of condonation of delay is rejected. Consequently, the Special Leave Petitions are dismissed. It is also open to the petitioners to urge all the rights and contentions before the Joint Collector before whom the appeal is stated to be pending.

Therefore, the common order dated 24.10.2005

passed by a Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A.Nos.76

and 78 of 2000 operates as res judicata in respect of land

measuring Acs.8.13 guntas bearing Survey Nos.113 to 120

of Karmanghat Village, Hayathnagar Taluk, Ranga Reddy.

Accordingly, the fifth issue is answered in affirmative.

43. The issue whether or not the Award dated

25.03.1985 passed by the Arbitrator under Section 8 of the

1952 Act is a nullity or not need not be examined as the

aforesaid Award was set aside by the learned Single Judge

by an order dated 06.07.1999 passed in A.S.No.1603 of

1985. Even otherwise, it is pertinent to mention that the

respondents have not laid any factual foundation with

regard to the Award being nullity in the pleadings. The

contention that since Mr. V.Neeladri Rao was Presiding

Officer of the Labour Court and was incompetent to pass

the Award is concerned, is misconceived. There is no

material on record to show that Mr. V.Neeladri Rao was not