The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 15.1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the Respondents No. 1 and 2 not to interfere in to the land of the petitioners Adm. Acs. 32-14 Gts in Sy.No. 279 to 283 and 287 to 289 of Farooqnagar Village, Shadnagar Mandal, [r/ahaboobnagar District in any manner, pending disposal of the CRp. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 reopen the above civil revision petition C.R.P No 5653 of 2006 for being heard and permit the Petitioner herein to make submissions and pass lA 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 add the petitioner as 3rd petitioner in CRP Noi5653 of 2006 in the interest of the subject ldgah will suffer and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRl. T P ACHARYA Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRl. 8860/KARRI MURALI KRISHNA counsel for the Respondents: 9192/MIRZA SAFIULLA BAIG Counsel for the Respondents: 422lJ PRABHAKAR Counsel for the Respondents: 4085/GP FOR ARBITRATION Counsel forthe Respondents: 704/MIR MASOOD KHAN Counsel for the Respondents: 6069/N RAVI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: 2008/GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER 1 -att- THE H()NOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K' SUJANA I.A.No.2 AF 2O2g IN/AND CwIL REVISION PETITION No.5653 of 2OO6 AND CML REVISION PETITION No' 1869/2O18 COMMON ORDI:)R: Since the lis involved in these revision petitions are same' they heard tosether and are being disposed of by way ol this common ordcr.

2. C.R.P.No 5653 of 2006 is filed by revision petitioners / plaintiffs ; and C.R.P.No.1869 of 2018 is hled by revision petitioners/defendant Nos.3 to 5 and proposed defendant Nos.4 to 8 challenging the judgment and decree dated 28.08.20O6 passed in O.S.No.S8 ol 12OOO by the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short 'the Tribunal'). In CRP.No.5653 of 2006, I A.No.2 of 2023 is filed by petitloner who is proposed respondent to be impleaded as Respondent No. 12 in the said CRP. 3 The pa:ties herein are relerred to as arra.y,r:d in OS.No.gg of

2000. I 2 .-

4. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs - the Managing Committee of ldgah Farooqnagar and the A.p. State Wakf Board, hled suit contending that land adjacent to the Idgah in Farooqnagar was Wakf property and had been unlawfully occupied by the defendants who are heirs of Akula Chennaiah. The land comprising Survey Nos.278 to 283 and 289 was Service Inam land attached to the religious institution and that the defendants had wrongfully obtained an Occupancy Right Certincate (ORC) without notifying the plaintiffs. However, the defendants contended that the land was merely Inam land, and not Wakf property, asserting that their father had been a protected tenant of the said property. In support of the said contention, they relied on the judgment passed in O.S.No.3 of 1968 and order passed in W.P.No.9 179 of 1990, which upheld their ciaims and dismissed the challenge of plaintiffs to the ORC.

5. The Tribunal adjudicated the dispute concerning the alleged wakf property at Farooqnagar by framing multiple issues for determination. The key issues included: (1) whether the plaintiffs were entitled to a declaration that the occupancy Rights Certiltcate issued on 16.05. 1987 in favor of the father of defendants 3 to 5 was null and void, (2) whether the plaintiffs could seek perpetual injunction to prevent the implementation of the said certificate in official records, (3) whether the plaintifts were entitled to recovery of t possession of lands described in Schedules A to E, (4) rvhether they were entitled to perpetual injunction against the defendants to prevent interference with their peaceful possession of lands in Schedules F and G, (5) whether the suit lands were wakf properties, (6) whether the sr-lit was barred by limitation, and (7) to what relief, if any, the plaintifls were entitled. An additional issur: was framed regarding whether the judgment in OS.No.3 of 1968 before the District Munsil' Court, Shadnagar, and the ordcr passed in WP.No.9179 of 199O constituted res judicata, thereb1,, precluding the Tribunal from rcexamining the matter.

6. During the proceedings, the ptaintiffs presented pWI, Ayub Ali Khan, the President of the Managing Commitree of Idgah Farooqnagar. as their witness, and submitted Exs.A I to A 16 as documentary evidence, which included: Ex.Al (Survey Commissioner Report), Ex.A2 (Town Map), Ex.A3 (Setwar), Ex.A4 (Vasul Bakhi), Ex.AS (Faisal patti for lg72_23], Ex.A6 (proceedings canceling the tenancy certificate), Ex.A7 (Form No. r issued b-v RDo ror oRC application), Iix.A8 (porm II), Ex.A9 (Form III issued on 26.5.19g1), Ex.Al0 (Notice: issued by MRO to plaintiff No. 1), Ex.Al1 (Letter from MRO dated 5.2.2000), Ex.A12 (Letrer dated 01.08.2000 from A.p. Wakf Board), Ex.Al3 (permission granted by Wakf Board for filing the suit datecl 2.g.2000), Ex.A14 (Death certilicar.€. o[ the father of 4 defendants 3 to 5 dated 14.5. i996), Ex.A15 (Proceedings of Wakf - Board dated 21.4.2OOO1, and Ex.A16 (Order of Wakf Board extending Piaintiff No. 1's Managing Committee on 2.10.2001). 7 . On the defense side, DW 1 P.Venkatiah and DW2 A.Shankaraiah deposed, asserting that the disputed lands were Inam lands rather than wakf properties. Documentary evidence submitted by the defendants, marked as Ex.B 1 to Ex.B8, included: Ex.B I (Khasra Pahani for 1954-58), Ex.B2 (Adangal), Ex.B3 (Form No. 1), Ex.B4 (Setwar for 2OO2 AD), Ex.B5 (Occupancy Right Certificate), Ex.B6 (Vasul Bakhi Register), Ex. 87 (Order passed by District Collector, Mahboobnagar), and Ex.B8 (Order io WP.9179 /9O dated

7.4.1997l.. These documents substantiated the claim that the lands in question were not Service lnam lands or wakf lands, but rather private Inam lands belonging to the predecessors of defendants 3 to 5.

8. After a thorough analysis of both oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the plaintilfs failed to establish that the suit land was a Service Inam land or wakf property The Tribunal relied heavily on prior judicial determinations, including the dismissal of OS.3/ 1968 and the decision in WP 9179 11990, both of which upheld the validity of the Occupancy Rights Certificate issued in favor of defendants' predecessor. Conscquently, the Tribunal ruled 5 that there was no cause of action against the defendants and -, dismissed the plair-rtiffs' claims. However, the Tribunal clrrected that the defendants ernd their agents must refrain from intr:rfering with the possession, rlse, and enjoyment of the Idgah itself, which remained a religious structure in Survey No.283. Aggrieved thereby, plaintiffs filed C.R.P.No.5653 of 2OO6 and defendant Nos.3 to 5 and proposed defendant Nos.4 to 8 liled C.R.P.No. 1869 of 20 18.

9. Heard Sri T.P. Acharya, learned counsel for petitioners in CRP.No.5653 r.lf 20O6, Sri J.Prabhakar, learned senior counsel lor respondents in CRP.No.5653 of 2006/ for petitioners in CRP.No.1869 of 2018, and Sri PV.Mahesh, learned counsel for respondents in CRP.No. 1869 of2O18. Written subnrissions on behalf of petitioner No.1 in C.R.P.No.5653 ,:,f 2OO6 / respondent No.1 in C.R.P.No. 1869 of 2Ol8: lO. The petitioners in CRP No.5653 of 2006 and rhe respondenrs in CRP No.18(,,9 of 2018, who are plaintiffs in O.S, No. 88 ol 2000, contend that the lands in Survey Nos.27g to 2g3 ancl 2g9, admeasuring Acs.32-14 guntas, situated at Farooqnagar Village, Mahabubnag:r District, are Service Inam lands belonging to Idgah, thereby, quaiifying as wakf property. They contend that the occupancy Rights certificates (oRCs) issued to rr,,s;pondents 3 to 5 I herein, are null and void, seeking recovery of possession of the lands. The respondents, on the other hand, assert that the lands are not - Service Inam lands, but ordinary Inam lands, and that their ORCs were upheld in appeals and WP.No.9179 of 199O, barring any interference. 1 1. It is contended that the Tribunal, through its judgment dated 26-08-2006, dismissed the suit on the ground that the lands do not constitute wakf property, but granted injunction, restraining defendants 3 to 5 from interfering with the possession, use, and enjoyment of the Idgah in Survey No.283. It is averred that the Tribunal failed to properly evaluate the material cvidence, including historical records that explicitly categorlze the lands as Service Inam lands. They cite the application filed by Zulekha Begum under the Tenancy Act in 1957, which was dismissed by the RDO on 03-02- 1958, acknowledging that the iands were exempt from the Tenancy Act due to their Service Inam status. This decision was affirmed by the District Collector on 02-03- i959, recognizing that both parties admitted the lands were Service Inam, thereby precluding later claims that they were merely Inam lands.

12. Reliance was placed in the judgment passed in O.S.No.3 of 1968, in which Zulekha Begum sought eviction against Akula Chennaiah, the father of respondents 3 to 5. Though the suit was -tt----r-az 1 dismissed, they argue that this was due to jurisdictional limitations rather than subsl-:tntive Iindings on land status. Moreover, they asscrt that the P.otected Tenancy Certificate of Cher-rnaiah was canceled by the MRO on 06-06-1986, and no appea[ was filed, rendering the can<:ellation Iinal under Section 35 of the Tenancy Act. Despite this, Ch,:nnaiah applied for an ORC, suppressing this cancellation ordcr and prior proceedings, leading to the ORC's issuance on 16 O5- 1987, which they contend is legally invalid.

13. The petitioners highlight Survey Report Ex.A1 ancl Faisal Parti Ex.As, both documenting the land as wakf property. They dispute the Tribunal's rcljilnce on WP No. 9179 of 1990, contending that they wcrc not partieri to that litigation, and that the t)istrict Wakf Committee, Mah:rbubnagar, which filed the petition, lacked the authority to repr( sent them. They further cite the ProvLso to Section 4 of the A.P. (T.,\.) Abolition of Inams Act, introduced in the year 1994 but retrosp,rctively effective from 1985, which renders all ORCs issued for lands l>elonging to religious institutions null and void. The petitioners relli tn the judgment rendered in the c:rse of Nambi Venkataiah and Another v. Venu Gopala Swamy Temple, Mahabubnagar District and Othersl, wherein it was held thert ORCs issued after the inclusion of Proviso to Section 4 of the A.p. (T.A.) ' zorz (:) aLo rs 8 Abolition of Inams Act are uoid ab initio. They assert that this judgment directly applies to their case, reinforcing that the ORCs granted in lavor of respondents 3 to 5 are legally untenable. Additionally, reference was placed to order passed in W.P. No. 7570 of 2019, where the provisions of Wakf Act were interpreted, aff-rrming that any person interested in the notified wakf property can approach the Wakf Tribunal for adjudication.

14. It was specifically contended that the Tribunal misdirected itself in law and fact, failing to consider binding precedents, and erroneously disregarding the statutory protection afforded to wakf lands. Therefore, prayed this Court to allow CRP No. 5653 ol 2OO6, setting aside the dismissal of their suit, and to dismiss CRP No. 1869 of 2O 18, affirming the injunction against defendants 3 to 5. \[ritten submissions behalf of petitiorIers C.R.P.No.l869 of 2018 / respondent Nos.3 to 5 in C.R.P.No.5653 of 2006:.

15. The defendants, who are petitioners in C.R.P. No. 1869 ol 2018 and respondent Nos.3 to 5 in C.R.P. No.5653 of 2OO6, advanced a comprehensive set of contentions disputing the plaintiffs' claims to the suit schedule properties. They asserted that the lands in Sy.Nos.278 to 283 and 287 to 289, excluding Sy.No.288, u.ere 9 maktha inam lands which had been regularized as Dastagardan pursuant to the A.P. (T.A.) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955. They contendcd r hal ;-he occupancy rights certificate (ORC) granted to their predecessor Akula Chennaiah, on 16.05. 1987 had been duly confirmed by the District Collector on 14. 12. 1989 and subsequently upheld by this Court in W.P.No.9179 of 199O. Learned senior counscl averrecl that this chain of confirmations, conferred hnality on thc ORC, rend<:ring any challenge to it unsustainable. The defendants denierl that the suit properties were registered wakf lands and emphasized t hat the plaintiffs had failed to establish any title or possession over Lhe lands. They pointed to the dismissal of O.S.No.3 of 1968, hlt:d by Smt. Zulekha Begum, through whom the plaintiffs claimed su<:cession, which conclusively held that the lands were not service inam lar-rds. The civil Court in that case had found no evidence of gran: or settlement record to support the vvakf character of the land, instcad noting that the lands were mai<tha dastagardan lancls.

16. Further, the defendants contended that the plaintiffs had relied solell- on I:)x.A 1 (survey report) to claim wakf slatus but failed to produce any notification under Section 6 of thc Wakf Act or comply with the procedures mandated under Sections 4 and S. They asserted thar rhe survey report lacked legal authority as a document IU of title, especially in the absence of a Gazette notification. According to thcm, the cntry in Ex.Ai recorded the Idgah area as 50 x 30 yards, amounting to 1500 sq. yards, and even this limited extent had not been shown to be in the plaintiffs' possession or use. They submitted that at the time of the survey in 1967 , one Kurkul Chinnayya was already in possession of the lands and there was no evidence indicating that he had been dispossessed thereafter. The defendants contended that the plaintiffs had not hled any documents to establish actual possession over the suit properties and highlighted that the revenue records such as the Khasra Phani (Ex.Bl) lor 1954-55 and subsequent pahanis reflected their family's cultivation and possession. They also challenged the validity of administrative ordcrs cited by the plaintiffs, particularly the proceedings dated

06.06.1986 (Ex.A6) arguing that they were issued without following due process, lacked statutory sanction, and did not constitute lormal cancellation of the ORC. 17 . The defendants maintained the stand that the suit filcd by the plaintiffs was procedurally barred. They invoked Section 29 of tFle A.P. (T.A.) Inams Abolition Act, which precludes challenging the ORC through a civil suit once it has been conhrmed through appropriate appellate and judicial channels. They stressed that the orders of the Rcvenue Divisional Ofhcer and the Collector, as well as the judgment 11 passed by this Court in W.P.No.9179 of 199O and subsequent dismissal of the review petition and delay condonatiorr application, had conclusively settled the matter. As such, the plaintiffs' attempt to re-open the ORC proceedings through O.S.No.88 of 2O00 is impermissible in [arv. Emphasis was laid on the contention that the plaintiffs' failure to seek a declaration of title rendered the entire suit defective. Thelr c ontended that even if the ORC was set aside, the plaintiffs could not claim title without a formal declaration, and no such prayer had been made.

18. In support of the above contentions, the defendants placed reliance on the ,udgments rendered in the case of Board of Muslim Wakfs, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan2, where the Hon''ble Supreme Court held that thc Wakf Board cannot assert ownership over properties unless thc requirements under Sections 4, 5, and 6 of the Wakf Act, are nret. Further reference was made contending that mere entries in sune1, or revenue records do not confer title without supporting notification. The defendants emphasized that no such notiflcation or,:ompliance existed in the present case, and even the Government, l:rrough its Officers, did not support the plaintiffs' claims. There forc, prayed this Court to dismiss CRp.No.5653 of 2006 and to allou' Cl?p.No. 1g69 of 2O1g. ' [(tszs) z scc qse] 12

19. Upon considering the submissions made, and material placed on record, the points for consideration and determination by this Court are as follows: [. Whether the plaintiffs are cntitled for cancellation of ORC ? II. Whether the impugned judgment requires any interference ? IIl. 'l'o rvhat exlent ? POINT Nos.I to III :

20. With regard to the point 'Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to cancellation of the Occupancg Rights Certiftcate (ORC)?', the plaintiffs sought cancellation of the ORC issued on 16.05. 1987 in favor of the lather ol ciefendants 3 to 5, asserting that the lands in Survey Nos. 278 to 283 and 289 were Service Inam lands attached to Idgah, thus qualifying as wakf property. They relied on documentary evidence, particularly Ex.Ai (Survey Commissioner's Report), Ex.AS (Faisal Patti for 1972-731, and Ex.A6 (Canbellation Proceedings of Tenancy Certificate), arguing that these records demonstrated that the lands *'ere religiously endowed properties. They contended that the ()ccupancy Rights Certificate was obtained without notifying them, --r 13 arld its issuanr:.: was in violation of statutory and procedural safeguards governing wakf properties. 2L. The defendants countercd the said contentions by producing Ex.B1 (Khasra Pahani lor 1954-58), Ex.BS (Occupancy Right Certihcate), and Ex.B7 (Order by District Collector, Mahabubnagar), asserting that thc lands were ordinary Inam lands, and that the ORC had been confirmed in appeals and writ proceedings, including WP No. 9779 of 199O, thereby precluding any fresh challenge. They further relied on o.S. No. 3 of 1968, where Zulekha Begum's suit for eviction against Akula Chennaiah was dismissed, reinforcing their position that the land was never recognized as Service Inam land for religious or charitable institutions.

22. The Tribunal extensively analyzed both oral and documentary evidence and notod that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the suit land was a Service [nam land issued in favor of a religious or charitable trust. While the plaintiffs relied on historical records and correspondences from the Wakf Board, they did not present any conclusive evidence to demon strate that the lands had been legally classified as wakl' property. The Tribunal further noted that previous proceedings such as WP No. 9179 of 199O and O.S. No.3 of 1968 had already uphcld the validity of the ORC issued to defendants, predecessor. Bas,:d on these findings, the Tribunal declined to 14 interfere with the ORC, and no legal basis was found to justify cancellation. Thus, the request for canceliation of ORC stands rejected

23. Upon a comprehensive review of the material evidence artd previous judicial findings, this Court holds that there is no basis for interference with the Tribunal's decision regarding the ORC issued in favor of defendants 3 to 5. The plaintiffs failed to establish that the disputed lands werc Service Inam lands granted for religious or charitable purposes, and no documentary or oral evidence was produced to contradict the ciassification of the lands as ordinary Inam lands. Further, prior judicial decisions, including O.S. No. 3 of 1968 and WP No. 9179 ot 1990, upheld the validity of the ORC and have attained finality. ln view of these hndings, the request for cancellation of ORC is rcjected, and the Tribunal's decision on this aspect stands confirmed.

24. In respect of point No.II - requires interference?', it is noted 'Whether the impugned judgment that in addition to seeking cancellation of the ORC, the plaintiffs prayed for an injunction restraining defendants 3 to 5 from interfering with the lands covered by Suney No. 283, where Idgah is situated. The Tribunal had grantcd thc injunction, prohibiting defendants lrom interfering with the p<.rsscssion and use of the Idgah itself. However, upon further 15 -- examination, it is evident that the Tribunal had already ruled that the lands in dispute did not constitute wakf propert5r and that Survey No- 283 u:as not the subject matter of the suit.

25. Given that the Tribunal concludcd that the suit land did not belong to the Wakf Board, and considering that Survey No. 283 was not directly included in the scope of adjudication, it lollows that no order could have been passed against Survey No. 283. As such, this portion of the Tribunal's finding is set aside, and no restrictions can be imposed on the defendants regarding Survey No. 283 beyond what is legally permissible under existing revenue and tenancy laws.

26. Upon a reexamination of the judgment of the Tribunal, it is evident that Sun,ey No. 283 was not the subject matter of the suit, and the impugned judgment concerning this properry is inconsistent with its own hndings. Since no reliel can be granted u'ith respect to land outside thr: scope of adjudication, this Court finds that the injunction granted in relation to Survey No. 283 must be set aside. Accordingly, this portion of the finding of Tribunal is reversed, and no interference orders are warranted against the defendants regarding Survey No. 283.

27. With regarcl to point No.l[[, as to what is the appropriate relief, it is noted that rtgarding I.A. No. 2 of 2023, hled by the legal heirs 16 seeking impleadment, it was contended that they were unaware of - the ORC proceedings and that their predecessor had passed away in

1983. Further, that they were not ir-rformed of subsequent developments, as such, sought to be impleaded in CRP No. 5653 of 2O06. However, it was obse rrcd that a petition for can'cellation of the ORC has already been filed before the Revenue Court, and that the present matter pertains to the Wakf Board's claims and is not connected to the personal claims of Zulekha Begum's legal heirs. Therefore, since the implead petitioner is not directly connected to the dispute, the prayer to be impleaded in the CRP.No.5653 of 2006 as respondent is untenable. As such, I.A. No. 2 of 2023 is liable to be dismissed, and no further orders are necessary with regard to their impleadment. 2a. IN THE RESULT, the judgment of the Tribunal dismissing the plaintiffs' claim for cancellation of the ORC, stalds confirmed, as the plaintiffs failed to establish that the suit lands were Service Inam lands granted to a religious or charitable institution. Further, the injunction restricting interferencc with Survey No. 283 is set aside, since the Tribunal had already concluded that the suit property did not constitute wakf land. With regard to I.A. No. 2 of 2023 (lmplead Petition), as the issue of ORC cancellation is already pending before the Revenue Court, and their claim is unconnected with the Wakf I t/ Board's suit, this Court is of the opinion that implead petitioner has no legal standing to be impleaded in CRP No. 5653 of 20O6'

29. Accordingly, in the light of the above observations, CRP.No.5653 of 2O06 along with IA.No.2 ol 2023 are dismissed and CRP-No.1869 of 11O18 is allowed. There shall be no ordcr as to costs' Miscellar.reous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed To, IJD/- MOHD. ISMAIL E,PUTY REGISTRAR D //TRUE COPY// \ SECTION OFFICER

1. MANDAL RE:VENUE OFFICER, FAROOQNAGAR, MAHABOOBNAGAR AND 5, Shadnagar, mahaboobnagar District

2. Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar Division, lr,4alrabubnagar 3. Akula Shankaraiah, S/o.Late Akula Chennaiah Resindenl of Farooqnagar village and lilandal Mahabubnagar District

4. Akula narayana, S/o.late Akula Chennaiah Resindent of Farooqnagar village and Mandal Mahabubnagar District

5. Akula ananaiah, S/o.late Akula Chennaiah Resindent of Farooqnagar village and Mandal Mahabubnagar District

6. A.P.Wakf T. bunal, Hyderabad, reptd.by its, Presiding Off;cer 7 One CC to llRI. T P ACHARYA Advocate [OPUC] 8. One CC to SRl. 8860/KARRI MURALI KRISHNA Advocate [OPUC] 9. One CC to SRl. 9192/MIRZA SAFIULLA BAIG Advocate !.OPUCI

10. One CC to :iRl. 422lJ PRABHAKAR Advocate [OPUC] n CC to -'jR1 4085/GP FOR ARBITRATION Advocate: IOPUC]

12. One CC to :;Rl. 704/lvllR IVASOOD KHAN Advocate [OPUC] 13.One CC to SRl. 6069/N RAVI PRASAD Advocate [OPUC] 14. One CC to SRl. 2008/GP FOR REVENUE Advocate [OPUC]

19.T*o CD Copies (Pu a. ") HIGH COUIITT DATED:231tit712025 ORDER CRP.No.56513 of 2006 61#'i\ / s 3 0 0i)I 26 I \ \ir ..-----:-;:::i <.'- /t ' -;. :7 DISMISSING THE I.A.NO. 2OF 2023 tN CRP.NO. 5653 0F 1006 & ALLOWING THE CRP. NO. I869 OF 20I8 @ ?*C.. 2e\ro\>i