The Telangana State Wakf Board vs Yeswant Patil
2023 Latest Caselaw 80 Tel

   THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

                               AND

           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI


                 WRIT APPEAL No.16 of 2023


JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)


      Heard Mr. Abu Akram, learned Standing Counsel for the

appellant-Telangana State Wakf Board (for short, 'the Wakf

Board' hereinafter) and Mr. Dantu Venkata Ramana Sarma,

learned counsel for the 1st respondent/writ petitioner.

2. This appeal is directed against the common

judgment and order dated 28.10.2022 passed by the learned

Single Judge allowing Writ Petition No.39286 of 2022 & batch

including Writ Petition No.38668 of 2022 out of which the

present appeal arises.

3. 1st respondent had filed the related writ petition

with the grievance that respondent Nos.2 & 3, more

particularly respondent No.3 was not receiving and processing

documents submitted by the 1st respondent for registration of 2 HCJ & NTRJ W.A.No.16 of 2023

various properties situated at Mamidipally Village, Moulali,

Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

4. Denial of registration was on the ground that the

subject properties are notified as Wakf properties under

Gazette Notification No.6-A published in A.P. Gazette, Part-II

dated 09.02.1989 as well as in Gazette Notification No.27-A

published in A.P. Gazette, Part-II dated 01.07.2004 issued by

the Wakf Board in respect of lands situated at Survey Nos.401

and 402 of Hanuman Nagar, Moulali in Medchal-Malkajgiri

District.

5. It was contended that Notification dated

09.02.1989 was set aside by this Court in W.P.No.5938 of

2006 & batch vide order dated 11.02.2021, which was

confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal

No.318 of 2021 & batch vide order dated 12.11.2021.

6. Learned Single Judge taking the view that when

the principal Notification dated 09.02.1989 was set aside by

this Court, there is no need to independently challenge 3 HCJ & NTRJ W.A.No.16 of 2023

subsequent Notification of the Wakf Board dated 01.07.2004.

Therefore, learned Single Judge opined that Sub-Registrar

i.e., respondent No.3 was not justified in declining to register

the documents presented for registration in respect of the said

properties. Accordingly, respondent No.3 has been directed to

register the documents after satisfying with the requirements

as contemplated under the Registration Act, 1908 and the

Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

7. Mr. Abu Akram, learned Standing Counsel for the

Wakf Board representing the appellant submits that the

Division Bench order of this Court dated 12.11.2021 in

W.A.No.318 of 2021 & batch has been stayed by the Supreme

Court in S.L.P(C).Nos.4166-4175/2022 (Telangana State

Wakf Board v. Perugu Radha Madhavi) vide order dated

12.09.2022.

8. As a matter of fact, Supreme Court has passed an

ad-interim order on that day directing the respondents not to

create any third party right.

                                  4                          HCJ & NTRJ
                                                       W.A.No.16 of 2023

9. If this is the position, question of directing the

Sub-Registrar for registration of documents does not arise.

10. We accordingly set aside the order dated

28.10.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in

W.P.No.38668 of 2022 and remand the matter back to the

learned Single Judge having roster to decide the writ petition

afresh in accordance with law.

11. Writ Appeal is accordingly allowed. However,

there shall be no order as to costs.

12. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if

any, in this Writ Appeal, shall stand closed.

_______________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

______________________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 05.01.2023 KL