Telangana High Court

K. Srini Vas S/O Late Sri K. Vithal Rao, vs Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board, on 25 April, 2024

              THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                                    AND
             THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI


              + WRIT PETITION Nos.8431 and 11730 of 2014

%          Date:25.04.2024

#          Viceroy Hotels Limited and others
                                                         ... Petitioners
                                    vs.
$          Telangana State Wakf Board, Hyderabad and others
                                                       ... Respondents

! Counsel for the Petitioners in W.P.No.8431 of 2014:
                      : Mr. S.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for
                            Mr. N.Naveen Kumar

    Counsel for the Petitioners in W.P.No.11730 of 2014:
                        : Mr. S.Nagesh Reddy, learned counsel for
                              Mr. T.Bala Mohan Reddy


     ^ Counsel for the respondent No.1 : Mr. Vedula Venkataramana, learned
                                         Senior Counsel for Mr. Abu Akram,
                                         learned  Standing    Counsel   for
                                         Telangana State Wakf Board

   Counsel for the respondent No.2 : Mr. A.M.Qureshi, learned Senior
                                    Counsel for Mr. M.A.K.Mukheed,
                                    learned counsel
< GIST:

          HEAD NOTE:

? CASES REFERRED:

      1. (1979) 2 SCC 468
      2. (2000) 2 SCC 121
      3. (2008) 9 SCC 306
      4. 2022 SCC Online SC 159
      5. 2023 SCC Online TS 3820
      6. (2003) 8 SCC 134 : AIR 2003 SC 3290
      7. (2020) 8 SCC 531
      8. AIR 1967 SC 1274
                             ::2::


     THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                            AND

 THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI



       WRIT PETITION Nos.8431 and 11730 of 2014


COMMON ORDER:

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

In these petitions, the petitioners have assailed the

validity of the action of Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board

in issuing the addendum notification dated 23.08.2007

and in instituting a proceeding under Section 54 of the

Wakf Act, 1995. On account of commonality of the issues,

the writ petitions were heard analogously and are being

decided by this common order. For the facility of reference,

facts of W.P.No.8431 of 2014 are being referred to.

(i) Relevant Facts:

2. Facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition in

nutshell are that a patta was granted by the Board of

Revenue on 07.02.1958 in accordance with the then extant

laws in respect of land measuring Ac.4.04 guntas in ::3::

Sy.Nos.181 and 182 at Kavadiguda Village, Hyderabad to

one Mohammed Gulam Dastagir. The subject matter of

W.P.No.8431 of 2014 is the land measuring 14,400 square

yards i.e., Acs.2.97 guntas in Sy.Nos.181 and 182/1,

situated at Kavadiguda Village, Hyderabad, whereas the

subject matter of W.P.No.11730 of 2014 is land measuring

1500 square yards in Sy.Nos.181 and 182/1 situated at

Kavadiguda Village, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as

"the subject property").

(ii) First round of claim by the Wakf Board:

3. The Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board conducted an

enquiry under Section 27 of the Wakf Act, 1954

(hereinafter referred to as "the 1954 Act") and determined

vide resolution dated 05.10.1958 that the subject property

is not Wakf property. After the demise of Mohd. Gulam

Dastagir, his legal representatives have executed an

agreement of sale in the month of December, 1963 in

favour of Smt. D.S.Laxmi and Smt. G.Mohini Kumari.

Thereafter, on 03.08.1964, the legal heirs of late Mohd.

Gulam Dastagir have executed a sale deed in respect of ::4::

land measuring 14,400 square yards (Acs.2.97 guntas) of

Sy.Nos.181 and 182 at Kavadiguda, Hyderabad, in favour

of Smt. D.S.Laxmi and Smt. G.Mohini Kumari.

(iii) Second round of claim by the Wakf Board:

4. Thereafter, one Mr.Abdul Gafoor had instituted a civil

suit, namely, O.S.No.2391 of 1964 on 29.06.1964 on the

file of I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad

on the ground that the subject property was a Wakf

property endowed through an alleged Muntakhab dated 21

Khurdad 1355 Fasli i.e., 1945. The trial Court vide order

dated 31.08.1965 returned the plaint on the ground of

deficit court fee and lack of pecuniary jurisdiction. Against

the aforesaid order, a revision petition, namely,

C.R.P.No.2097 of 1965 was preferred before the Andhra

Pradesh High Court, which was dismissed.

(iv) Third round of claim by the Wakf Board:

5. Thereafter, the Wakf Board issued a show cause

notice dated 11.08.1966 to Smt. D.S.Laxmi and Smt.

G.Mohini Kumari claiming the subject property to be the

Wakf property and proposed an enquiry to be conducted in ::5::

that regard. The said show cause notice was challenged by

Smt. D.S.Laxmi and Smt. G.Mohini Kumari in a writ

petition, namely, W.P.No.1772 of 1966 before the Andhra

Pradesh High Court. During the pendency of the writ

petition, the writ petitioners namely, Smt. D.S.Laxmi and

Smt. G.Mohini Kumari transferred the subject property in

favour of one Krishna Cold Drinks Private Limited. The

Andhra Pradesh High Court by an order dated 05.09.1968

quashed the proceedings initiated by the Andhra Pradesh

Wakf Board on the ground that once a determination

under Section 27 of the 1954 Act has already been made

that the subject property is not a Wakf property, it is not

permissible for the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board to

re-examine the issue again.

6. Sri Krishna Bottlers Private Limited filed a

declaration before the Special Officer under the Urban

Land Ceiling Act, 1976 seeking exemption from the

provisions of the aforesaid Act. This aforesaid exemption

was granted vide G.O.Ms.No.888, dated 22.10.1981.

::6::

7. The Wakf Board published a Gazette Notification in

A.P. Gazette at Sl.No.1530 wherein a property by

description of "Mosque Sultan with Graveyard and land in

Sy.No.82/2 at Hyderabad City, Ward No.1, Block 3,

Kavadiguda was included as Wakf property. On

16.09.1984, the Government of Andhra Pradesh accorded

permission to Sri Krishna Bottlers Private Limited to

convert the use of land from heavy industrial use to

commercial use for the purpose of running a hotel.

Sometime in the year 1990, the Municipal Corporation,

Hyderabad, granted permission to construct hotel on the

subject property.

(v) Fourth round of claim by the Wakf Board:

8. Thereafter, the Wakf Board issued a notice dated

11.06.1998 under Section 54(1) of the Wakf Act, 1995

(hereinafter referred to as "the 1995 Act") on the ground

that the petitioners are encroachers on the Wakf property.

The petitioners thereupon submitted a reply on 24.07.1998

to the notice issued them. After receipt of the reply, no

further steps were initiated by the Wakf Board.

::7::

(vi) Fifth round of claim by the Wakf Board:

9. After a lapse of seven years, another notice dated

01.02.2005 under Section 54(1) of the 1995 Act was issued

to the petitioners by the Wakf Board. The petitioners

thereupon submitted a detailed representation on

09.03.2005 in which a specific stand was taken that the

subject property is not a wakf property and the Wakf Board

has also appraised that continuous and deliberate

initiation of the proceeding as regards the subject property

amounts to contempt of court.

10. After a period of 24 years from the date of publication

of the Gazette notification dated 12.07.1984 under the

1995 Act, in which "Mosque Sultan with Graveyard and

land in Sy.No.182/2" was mentioned, an addendum to the

Gazette Notification was issued on 23.08.2007 by which

the Gazette Notification dated 12.07.1984 was amended to

read as "Masjid Bagh Kavadiguda, Hyderabad, Old

Correspondent No.140 - New Sy.No.181, with extent

Ac.1.24 gts and Sy.No.182 with extent Ac.2.20 gts, total

Ac.4.04 gts"

::8::

11. On 21.01.2014, petitioner No.2 learnt from a

newspaper article published in English daily 'The Hindu' in

which it was reported that Wakf Board is contemplating

action against petitioner No.1 for encroachment of Wakf

property. Thereupon, on 22.01.2014, the petitioners

immediately sent a communication to the Special Officer of

the Wakf Board asserting that no action can be initiated in

view of the previous adjudications made by the Courts from

time to time.

12. Thereafter, the Wakf Board initiated a proceeding on

04.02.2014, namely, O.S.No.13 of 2014 before the Andhra

Pradesh State Wakf Tribunal under Section 54 of the 1995

Act praying for eviction of petitioner No.1 from the subject

property. The petitioners were asked to appear before the

Wakf Tribunal on 21.03.2014. The petitioners thereupon

have filed the instant writ petition in which challenge has

been made to the action of the Wakf Board in issuing the

addendum notification dated 23.08.2007 and in instituting

a proceeding under Section 54 of the 1995 Act. A Bench of

this Court by an interim order dated 20.03.2014 directed ::9::

the Wakf Tribunal not to pass any adverse order against

the petitioners during the pendency of the writ petition.

(vii) Events after filing of the writ petition:

13. During the pendency of the writ petition, a company

petition was filed against petitioner No.1 by Asset

Reconstruction (India) Limited under Section 7 of the

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 before the National

Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench. The aforesaid

petition was admitted on 12.03.2018 and Corporate

Insolvency Resolution process was initiated. M/s. Anirudh

Agro Farms Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Farms

Limited") also participated in CIRP process and submitted

a resolution plan on 10.11.2022. The Farms Limited was

declared as Successful Resolution Applicant and a letter of

intent was issued in its favour. The resolution professional

therefore approached the National Company Law Tribunal

seeking approval of the resolution plan submitted by the

Farms Limited, which was dismissed by an order dated

09.06.2023. The said order was assailed by Farms Limited

in an appeal before the National Company Law Appellate ::10::

Tribunal, Chennai. The National Company Law Appellate

Tribunal vide order dated 06.10.2023 set aside the order

passed by the National Company Law Tribunal and

approved the resolution plan submitted by Farms Limited.

The Farms Limited made payments to the creditors and the

resolution plan was duly implemented on 10.10.2023. On

12.10.2023, a new Board was constituted to manage the

affairs of the petitioner's company and Mr. K.Ravinder

Reddy was appointed as Managing Director-cum-CEO of

the company.

(viii) Submissions of the petitioners:

14. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in

W.P.No.8431 of 2014 submitted that petitioner No.1 is

operating, Marriot, a five star hotel on the subject property

and on multiple occasions the claims of the Wakf Board

with regard to ownership of the subject property had been

negatived by various forums such as Wakf Board,

including this Court. It is further contended that

successive actions of the Wakf Board in initiating the

proceedings contrary to settled adjudication are barred on ::11::

the principles of res judicata. It is also contended that once

in an enquiry under Section 27 of the 1954 Act, the Wakf

Board itself had resolved that the subject property is not a

Wakf property, the Wakf Board cannot repeatedly initiate

subsequent actions to assert that the subject property is a

Wakf property. It is urged that it is not open for the Wakf

Board to issue addendum notification after an inordinate

delay of 24 years and in fact, the addendum notification is

not an addendum notification but is a de novo notification.

It is further submitted that the procedure prescribed under

the 1995 Act for issuance of addendum notification has not

been followed. In support of the aforesaid submissions,

reliance has been placed on decisions of the Supreme

Court in Board of Muslim Wakfs, Rajasthan vs. Radha

Kishan 1, Punjab Wakf Board vs. Gram Panchayat2,

T.Kalimurthi vs. Five Gori Thaikal Wakf 3, State of

Andhra Pradesh (now the State of Telangana) v. A.P.

1 (1979) 2 SCC 468 2 (2000) 2 SCC 121 3 (2008) 9 SCC 306 ::12::

State Wakf Board 4 and Munawar Sultana v. Gosula

Ramulu 5.

(ix) Submissions of the respondent No.1:

15. Learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1

contended that the Wakf Board has initiated a proceeding

under Section 54 of the 1995 Act and had issued a notice

to the petitioners. It is further submitted that Wakf Board

has filed a suit, namely O.S.No.13 of 2014 under Section

54(3) of the 1995 Act and the burden is on the Wakf Board

to adduce evidence to prove that the subject property is a

Wakf property. It is also submitted that the issue whether

the subject property is a Wakf property or not has to be

adjudicated by the Wakf Tribunal. It is argued that the

petitioners shall get the opportunity before the Wakf

Tribunal and in case an adverse order is passed against

them, they have a statutory remedy of revision under

Section 83(9) of the 1995 Act. It is also contended that

once a statutory remedy is available to the petitioners, the

petitioners cannot question the initiation of the

4 2022 SCC Online SC 159 5 2023 SCC Online TS 3820 ::13::

proceedings by the Wakf Board in this writ petition. It is

further contended that a writ of prohibition would be

issued if there is an inherent lack of jurisdiction. It is also

contended that the 1995 Act permits the filing of suit. In

support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance has been

placed on decision of the Supreme Court in Thirumala

Tirupati Devasthanams v. Thallapaka Ananthacharyulu 6.

16. It is argued that the requirement for issue of

prohibition in the facts and circumstances of the case have

not been fulfilled and in case this Court decides the issue

raised by the petitioners, the parties would lose of

statutory remedy prescribed to them under Section 83(9) of

the 1995 Act.

(x) Submissions of the respondent No.2:

17. Learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.2

submitted that the petitioners in substance in the instant

writ petition are seeking a perpetual injunction and in view

of the mandate contained in Section 41 of the Specific

Relief Act, 1963, such a relief cannot be granted by way of

6 (2003) 8 SCC 134 : AIR 2003 SC 3290 ::14::

a writ petition. It is contended that in respect of the subject

matter of the proceeding pending before the Wakf Tribunal

under Section 54 of the 1995 Act, a writ petition has been

filed. It is argued that the Wakf Tribunal is competent to

decide the issue whether the property in question is a Wakf

property, as it is deemed to be a civil court in view of the

legal fiction created by Section 83(5) of the 1995 Act. It is

also contended that the petitioners ought to have filed a

petition under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908. In support of the aforesaid submission,

reliance has been placed on decision of Supreme Court in

Essar Steel India Ltd. Committee of Creditors vs.

Satish Kumar Gupta 7.

(xi) Rejoinder submissions of the petitioners:

18. By way of rejoinder, learned Senior Counsel for the

petitioners has pointed out that Section 40 of the 1995 Act

corresponds to Section 27 of the 1954 Act. It is submitted

that Section 54 of the 1995 Act is designed for the

purposes other than the one mentioned in Section 40 of

7 (2020) 8 SCC 531 ::15::

the 1995 Act. It is further submitted that the power under

Section 54 of the 1995 Act cannot be exercised in respect

of a matter which is prohibited by Section 40 of the 1995

Act. It is also submitted that the prayer in this writ petition

is not to stall the suit but the petitioners have assailed the

authority of the Wakf Board itself to institute the

proceeding.

(xii) Analysis:

19. We have considered the rival submissions made by

both the parties. At the outset, it is apposite to take note of

the maxim "boni judicis est lites dirimere, ne lis ex lite

oritur, et interest reipulicate ut sint fines litium"

which casts a duty upon the Court to bring litigation to an

end or to at least ensure that if possible no further

litigation arises from the cases pending before the Court

accordance with law, is applicable with greater emphasis

where the statute attaches finality to a decision. Bearing in

mind the aforesaid salutary principle, we may take note of

the provisions of the 1954 Act.

::16::

20. The 1954 Act was enacted to provide for better

administration and supervision of wakfs. Section 5(2) of the

1954 Act provided that after a property is notified to be a

wakf property, a determination has to be made by a civil

court, whenever any dispute arises after the notification is

published by the Wakf Board as to whether a public law

property specified as wakf property in a list published, is a

wakf property or not. Section 6 provides that civil court

shall not entertain a suit after expiry of one year after

publication of list by the Wakf Board. Section 27 of the

1954 Act deals with decision if a property is a wakf

property. Section 27 empowers the Board to decide

whether any property is a wakf property or not. Section 27,

which is relevant for the purpose of controversy involved in

these petitions, is extracted below for the facility of

reference:

"27. Decision if a property is wakf property: (1) The Board may itself collect information regarding any property which it has reason to believe to be wakf property and if any question arises whether a particular property is wakf property or not or whether a wakf is a Sunni wakf or a Shia wakf, it may, after making such inquiry as it may deem fit, decide the question.

::17::

(2) The decision of the Board on any question under sub-

section (1) shall, unless revoked or modified by a civil court of competent jurisdiction, be final."

Thus, the Wakf Board may itself collect information

regarding any property in the manner provided under

Section 27 of the 1954 Act and decide whether a particular

property is a wakf property or not and the said decision is

final, unless it is revoked or modified by a civil court. The

Scheme under Section 27(1) of the 1954 Act postulates an

enquiry and a quasi-judicial duty has been cast on the

Board.

21. In the instant case, the Wakf Board conducted an

enquiry under Section 27 of the 1954 Act and determined

vide resolution dated 05.10.1958 that the subject property

is not a wakf property. The aforesaid resolution has been

referred to in the order dated 05.09.1968 passed in

W.P.No.1772 of 1966 by Andhra Pradesh High Court.

Thereafter, with the consent of the Board one Mr. Abdul

Gafoor filed a suit bearing O.S.No.2391 of 1964 before

I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad on

the ground that the subject property is a wakf property ::18::

endowed through an alleged Muntakhab dated 21

Khurdad, 1355 Fasli i.e., 1945. The trial court vide

judgment and decree dated 31.08.1965 returned the plaint

for presentation before the competent court for lack of

pecuniary jurisdiction as well as non-payment of requisite

court fee.

22. The said judgment was assailed in a revision petition

vide C.R.P.No.2097 of 1965 which was dismissed.

Thereafter, the Wakf Board issued a show cause notice

dated 11.08.1966 to Smt. D.S.Laxmi and Smt. G.Mohini

Kumari on the ground that the subject property is a wakf

property. The said show cause notice was challenged in a

writ petition, namely W.P.No.1772 of 1996 before the

Andhra Pradesh High Court. The Andhra Pradesh High

Court by an order dated 05.09.1968 held that once

determination has been held under Section 27 of the 1954

Act that subject property is not a wakf property, it would

not be permissible for the Wakf Board to examine the issue

again. Accordingly, a writ of prohibition was issued. The

relevant extract of the order reads as under:

::19::

"The Section is peremptory and once the Board made inquiries and gave a decision, it is final and is only subject to the decision of the civil court. No provision was brought to my notice which authorizes the Board to revise its earlier order. Whatever may be the reason for the review, when the power of review is not there, the Board or in its place the Administrator has no jurisdiction to review the order; and consequently, the Administrator cannot make any fresh enquiry. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed and a writ of prohibition is hereby issued directing the respondent not to proceed with the inquiry in pursuance of the notice given to the petitioner on 11.08.1966. The order of the respondent is also quashed. In the circumstances, however, I make no order as to costs."

23. Thereafter, the Wakf Board once again issued a

notice under Section 54(1) of the 1995 Act on the ground

that the petitioners have encroached the wakf property.

The petitioners submitted a reply to the notice dated

30.06.1998 in which the claim of the Wakf Board that it is

a wakf property was denied. However, no further action in

the matter for seven years was taken. After seven years,

another notice dated 01.02.2005 was issued under Section

54(1) of the 1995 Act on the ground that subject land is a

wakf property. The petitioner No.1 submitted a detailed

representation on 09.03.2005. Thereafter, on 04.02.2014,

the Wakf Board instituted a proceeding under Section 54 of ::20::

the 1995 Act seeking eviction of the petitioners from the

subject property.

24. Thus, it is evident that successive attempts had been

made on behalf of the Wakf Board to claim the subject

property as wakf property, despite determination of the

question by the Wakf Board itself as long back as on

05.10.1958 itself under Section 27 of the 1954 Act that

subject property is not a wakf property. Section 27(2) of the

1954 Act contains a mandate that decision of the Board

under Section 27(1) of the Act is final unless it is revoked

or modified by a civil court of competent jurisdiction.

Admittedly, the resolution dated 05.10.1958 has neither

been modified nor revoked by a civil court of competent

jurisdiction. The aforesaid determination made under

Section 27(1) of the 1954 Act, which has not been denied

on behalf of the respondents, binds the Wakf Board.

25. The principles governing the exercise of power to

issue a writ of prohibition were dealt with by the Supreme ::21::

Court in S.Govinda Menon vs. the Union of India 8 and in

paragraph 5, it was held as under:

"5. The jurisdiction for grant of a writ of prohibition is primarily supervisory and the object of that writ is to restrain courts or inferior tribunals from exercising a jurisdiction which they do not possess at all or else to prevent them from exceeding the limits of their jurisdiction. In other words, the object is to confine courts or tribunals of inferior or limited jurisdiction within their bounds. It is well settled that the writ of prohibition lies not only for excess of jurisdiction or for absence of jurisdiction but the writ also lies in a case of departure from the rules of natural justice (See Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd Edn., Vol. 11, p.

114). It was held for instance by the Court of Appeal in King v. North [1927 (1) KB 491] that as the order of the Judge of the Consistory Court of July 24, 1925 was made without giving the vicar an opportunity of being heard in his defence, the order was made in violation of the principles of natural justice and was therefore an order made without jurisdiction and the writ of prohibition ought to issue. But the writ does not lie to correct the course, practice or procedure of an inferior tribunal, or a wrong decision on the merits of the proceedings. It is also well established that a writ of prohibition cannot be issued to a court or an inferior tribunal for an error of law unless the error makes it go outside its jurisdiction (See Regina v. Comptroller General of Patents and Design [1953 (2) WLR 760, 765] ) and Parisienne Basket Shoes Proprietary Ltd. v. Whyte [59 CLR 369]. A clear distinction must therefore be maintained between want of jurisdiction and the manner in which it is exercised. If there is want of jurisdiction then the matter is coram non judice and a writ of prohibition will lie to the court or interior

AIR 1967 SC 1274 ::22::

tribunal forbidding it to continue proceedings therein in excess of its jurisdiction."

26. Thereafter, in Thirumala Tirupati Devasthanams

(supra), the aforesaid principles were reiterated in

paragraph 14 of the aforesaid judgment. The relevant

extract of the said paragraph reads as under:

"14. On the basis of the authorities it is clear that the Supreme Court and the High Courts have power to issue writs, including a writ of prohibition. A writ of prohibition is normally issued only when the inferior court or tribunal (a) proceeds to act without or in excess of jurisdiction, (b) proceeds to act in violation of the rules of natural justice, (c) proceeds to act under law which is itself ultra vires or unconstitutional, or (d) proceeds to act in contravention of fundamental rights. The principles, which govern the exercise of such power, must be strictly observed. A writ of prohibition must be issued only in rarest of rare cases. Judicial discipline of the highest order has to be exercised whilst issuing such writs. It must be remembered that the writ jurisdiction is original jurisdiction distinct from appellate jurisdiction. An appeal cannot be allowed to be disguised in the form of a writ. In other words, this power cannot be allowed to be used "as a cloak of an appeal in disguise". Lax use of such a power would impair the dignity and integrity of the subordinate court and could also lead to chaotic consequences. It would undermine the confidence of the subordinate court".

27. On the touchstone of the aforesaid well settled legal

principles, in the facts of the instant case, firstly in view of ::23::

determination of the issue whether or not the subject

property is wakf property under Section 27 of the 1954 Act,

having attained finality which even otherwise binds the

Wakf Board and secondly, in view of writ of prohibition

dated 05.09.1968 in W.P.No.1772 of 1966 by the Andhra

Pradesh High Court, the initiation of the proceeding by the

Wakf Board is in excess of jurisdiction and the requirement

of issue of writ of prohibition is fulfilled.

28. At this stage, we may advert to the issue of validity of

the action of the Wakf Board in issuing the errata

notification after a period of twenty four years. The scope

and meaning of the expression "errata"/"corrigendum" was

considered by the Supreme Court in State of Andhra

Pradesh (now the State of Telangana) vs. A.P.State Wakf

Board (supra) and in paragraphs 150 and 151, it was held

as under:

"150. 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:--

::24::

"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'.

xxxxxxxxx

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 LR 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 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::

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.

xxxxxxxxx

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".

151. 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."

29. It is well settled in law that when 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 the ::26::

reasonable time has to be decided in the facts and

circumstances of the act (see Meher Rusi Dalal vs. Union

of India [(2004) 7 SCC 362]; P.K.Sreekantan vs.

P.Sreekumaran Nair [(2006) 13 SCC 574] and K.B.Nagur

vs. Union of India [(2012) 4 SCC 483]). The Supreme

Court in State of Andhra Pradesh vs. A.P.State Wakf

Board (supra) also disapproved the action of the Wakf

Board in issuing the errata after seventeen years.

30. In the instant case, the gazette notification under the

provisions of the 1995 Act was issued on 12.07.1984,

wherein the description of the property reads as under:

"Mosque Sultan with Graveyard and Land in Survey No.182/2"

31. Thereafter, an addendum to the gazette notification

dated 12.07.1984 was issued on 23.08.2007 i.e., after a

period of 24 years, by which notification dated 12.07.1984

was amended to read as follows:

"Masjid Bagh Kawadiguda, Hyderabad, Old Correspondent No.140-New Sy.No.181, with extent Acs.1.24 guntas, and Sy.No.182 with extent Ac.2.20 guntas, total acres 4.04 guntas".

::27::

32. Thus, on conjoint reading of the notification dated

12.07.1984 and addendum dated 23.08.2007, it is evident

that it is not in the nature of clarification of the previous

notification but rather a substitution of the original

notification which is not permissible in law after a long

lapse of 24 years.

33. So far as submissions on behalf of the respondents

are concerned, suffice it to say that the petitioners cannot

be allowed to suffer legal injury merely because they have a

statutory remedy available under the 1995 Act, especially

in a case where the initiation of proceeding itself is vitiated