The High Court · 2025

RespondenV Defendant No.3 to 6 Rl/o. Chevella (V and M), R.R.Dist. (Respondent / Defendant No.3 to 6 were added as per order in 1.A.No.186/17, dt.28lo4/2017) ...Respondents/Defendants IA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the judgment and decree'in O.S.No.101/2016 (old O.S.No.29i2007) dt.2dj3l2121 on the file of the Telangana State Wakf Tribunal at Hyderabad, pending disposal of the CRP. Counsel for the Petitioners: Smt. G. Bhanu Priya Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Farhan Azam Khan, SC FOR WAQF BOARD The Court made the following: ORDER o HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 743 OF 2O21 ORDER: This Revision is directed against the judgement and decree of the Telangana State Wakf Tribunal at Hyderabad in O.S.No. 101 of 2016 (old O.S.No.29 of 2O07) dated

26.O3.2021. Since, admittedly, there was interim order of slatus

2. quo granLed' during pendencl' of suit, which subsisted till disposal of the suit, while admitting this Revision on 24 .06.2021, this Court directed both the parties to maintain status quo as on date in all respects till disposal of the Revision'

3. Plaintiffs in the suit are petitioners and defendants are respondents herein. The suit was filed by one Mohammed Nazeer (died per LRs) and nine others seeking the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of the land in Survey Nos. 21 and 22, totally admeasuring Acs-5.33 guntas situated at Chevella Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and consequently, direct the 1't defendant to delete the suit land from the notilied wakf propert5r by cancelling the gazette notification published in A.P Gazette No.7-A, page No.9 T l dated 16.02.1989. The Tribunal dismissed the suit uid_e order under Revision on the ground that plaintiffs have no title and they are nol entitled for the relief of deleting the suit property from the gazette notification. 4. It is the case of petitioners that originally, suit land was owned and possessed by one Mohammed Jahangir, father of the 1"t petitioner and grandfather of petitioners 3 and 4. It is their case that the name of Mohammed Jahangir wzLs recorded as pattedar and possessor in revenue records and ergricultural pass book was also issued by revenue authorities in 19g0. Further, it is their case that after the demise of Mohammed Jahangir, names of his two sons i.e. Mohammed Basheer and Mohammed Nazeer (rst petitioner) have been entered in revenue records. While so, the relatives of plaintiffs filed O.S.No. 92 of 2016 against the Waqf Board in respect oI suit land contending that it belongs to Chilla Moula Ali situated in Survey No. 6/ 1 of Chevella Village and Mandal and the suit land is attached to Chilla. When the officials of Waqf Board tried to interfere, petitioners got issued notice dated lg.O2.2OO7 to thc Board to take steps to delete the land from the list of Auqaf and not to disturb their possession. --l i I I J o

5. On the other hand, the defence put-forward by the Waqf Board is that there is a waqf institution Chilla Mouila Ali in Survey No. 6/ 1 of Chevella Village which has got attached dry land measuring Acs.5.33 guntas in Survey Nos. 21 and 22 - a registered and notified waqf institution in Gazette No. 7-A on the basis of report of Survey Waqf Commissioner. It is their further case that neither Mohd. Jahangir nor Mohd. Basheer and others have any right over the suit land.

6. In the order under Revision, the Court below after thoroughly going through the evidence, both oral and documentary, observed that the name of the institution i.e. Hzt. Mouild Ali was shown in Column No. 11 of Chesla and also palrani extracts of 1964-65 and 1972-73 as pattadar of schedule land; plaintiffs have not produced any document to prove contra and they also failed to establish the link as to how the suit land came into ownership of their alleged predecessors- in-title, more particularly Mohd. Basheer from whom they are claiming the right of ownership through Ex.A9. The material on record does not show that plaintiffs were in possession of the suit property at the relevant time, therefore, the queslion of alleged interference by the officials of Waqf Board does not arise. .I I -l Thus observing, the Court below held that petitioners - plaintiffs have no title or possession over the suit land and they are not entitled for perpctual injunction. It is further observed that Waqf Board had proved Chesla Pahani for 1955-58, pahanis for 1972-73 and. 1973-74 marked as Exs.Bl to E}3 which show that name ol Dargah Hzt. Moula Ali was recorded and they are old documents much prior to the documents relied on by petitioners. Even in Ex.B9 pahani for 1963-64, suit waqf institution name was reflected. Further, Ex.B7 goes to show that Waqf Board lodged a complaint with the Station House Officer, Chevella against plaintilfs 2 to 9 when they il1egally sold away the suit land to third parties, however, the said sale transaction lr.as subsequentll,, cancelled under Ex.B8. The Court below was of the opinion that there is no reason to clisbelieve the evidence of D.W. 1 coupled with Exs.Bl to 83, B5 to 87 and 89 which would go to show that suit land is waqf property.

7. Sri Dontineni Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel on behalf of Sri G. Bhanu Priya, learned counseL for petitioners would submit that Tribunal erred in relying on the documents filed by respondents and holding that suit land was waqf I I 5 property. Further, it is submitted that Exs.A 1 to A5 clinchingly prove right, title and possession of petitioners. The suit was dismissed during pendency of Writ Petitions No. 5069 and i 3934 of 2077 , Writ Petition No. 1 142 1 of 2O 1 8 and Writ Petition No. 1702O of 2020 which have direct bearing to the subject matter. l,earned counsel further argued that Tribunal did not give opportunity to petitioners before the alleged survey of 196O or before issuance of Gazette dated 16.O2.1989, hence, on this ground, the suit ought to havc been decreed.

8. Heard Sri Farah Azam Xhan, learned Standing Counsel for Waq[ Board and Sri P. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Ms. Krishna Keerthana. The 2nd respondent was deleted from the array of parties as per the order dated 14 .L2.2021.

9. As could be seen from the material on record, the case of petitioners is, name of Mohammed Jahangir, father of the l.t petitioner and grandfather of petitioners 3 and 4 was recorded as pattadar ald possessor in revenue records and was also issued agricultural pass book in 1980 itself. Though P.W. 1 (the 4ti, plaintiff) claimed that there is an entry in the revenue records in the name of Mohammed Jahangir in 1980, no such j I I 6 document is produced before the Tribunal. On the other hand, the case of defendants is that in fact, there is a Waqf Institution Chilla Moula Ali in Survey No. 6/ 1 of Chevelia Village which was attached to suit land and which is a registered waqf institution notified in Ex.BS Gazette dated 16.02.1989 on the basis of Ex.B6 survey commissioner's report; that suit land is service inam land attached to waqf institution and Mohd. Jahangir and his sons or grandsons have no right over the same.

10. P.W.I who is the plaintiff stated that suit land was originally ovvned and possessed by Mohd. Jahangir u-hose name was also recorded as pattadar and possessor in revenue records and agriculture passbook was also issued in 1980 itself in his name. According to P.W. 1, after demisc of Jahangir, thc names of his two sons Mohd. Basheer and the lst plaintiff have been entercd in revenue records and since Mohd. Basheer also died in 1995, leaving behind his wife, plaintiff No.2 and two sons plaintiffs 3 and 4, their names have been mutated irr respect of the lands owned by Mohd. Basheer. However, to prove the same, no documents, as rightly observed by the Tribunal, were placed. Further, the Waqf Tribunal dealt with Exs.A1 to A2T. Ex.A2 is the true copy of pahani for 2006-0T in respect of the land l ^ showing the names of plaintiffs 1 to 4 with different extents' The Tribunal, at para 18 of the order, observed that only Village Revenue Oflicer issued this document and there is no date as to when it was issued and that plaintiffs have not established as to when there is partition and how such extents were allotted to them. Further, it was observed that documents i.e. pahanis relied on by plaintiffs are of recent origin issued in or after 1995 only and they have not produced any document prior thereto' In the cross-examination, P.W. 1 admitted that in column No' 1 1 against suit Survey Nos. 21 and 22, it is mentioned as Dargah Hazratlrr Moula Ali in Ex.B 1 Chesla Pahani for 1955-58; similarly, in Exs.B2 and 83 pahanis for 1972-73 and 1973-74' such entries were made. These documents, apart from other are more authentic and reliable to show that suit land is waqf property as claimed by the I "t defendant. P.W. 1 also expressed ignorance about change of name in the pahani in column Nos. 12 and 13 from 1994195. The name of the institution was shown in column No. 11 of Chesala and also pahani extracts of 1964-65 and 1972-73 as pattadar of schedule land, however, plaintiffs have not produced any document to prove contra and also to cstablish the link as to why 'suit lanrl came into A l It ownership of their alleged predecessors-in-tile, more particularly r- Mohd. Bashcer from whom they are claiming right of ownership through Ex.A9. 1 1. Uncler Section 101 of the Evidence Act, it is for petitioners - plaintiffs to establish their own case. Apart from proving right and title over the property, the1, have to necessarily establish their lawful possession over the suit land as on the date of filing the suit. However, petitioners have failed to prove the sarne. The Tribunal categorically dealt with all the issues in tht-. order under revision, as noted supra and held that the materia I on record does not show that plaintiffs were in possession of suit land at the relevant time, hence, plaintiffs have got no titlc or possession over suit land and they are not entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for. In view of the above circrrmstances, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the suit and petitioners have not made out any case to interfere with the order under revision. Hence, the Rcvision is liable to be dismissed. 12 Thc Civil Revision Petition is accordingly, clismissed. No costs. 9

13. closed. To, Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand //TRUE COPY// Sd/. MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR SE CTION O FFICER

1. The Telangana State Waqf Tribunal at Hyderabad. 2. One CC to Smt. G. Bhanu Priya, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Farhan Azam Khan, SC FOR WAQF BOARD [OpUCl 4. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:1 110212025 ORDER CRP.No.743 of 2021 1Hf. S14 I Ro ( t) 2 3 ilny ZozS (\-\ * D 'spa 16 "t t o r-: I I I DISMISSING OF THE CIVIL REVISION PETITTON o 4z ,4"15 r/,(5