JUDGMENT One Mulla Mohammad Razaq Mohiuddin and three others filed this writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming the following relief: “Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the action of the respondents in failure to take action pursuant to the communication sent by the 2nd respondent dated 13.3.2013 and the consequential reports of the 2nd respondent dated 16.7.2013, 3.5.2014, 4.11.2015 by taking into consideration of the petitioners representations dated 22.12.2018 and 24.8.2019 as illegal and arbitrary as the said proceedings were issued for implementation of the orders of the Honble High Court dated 4.11.2013 in W.P No.8848 of 2007 and consequently direct the respondents to take consequential steps pursuant to the communication sent by the 2nd respondent dated 13.3.2013 and the consequential reports of the 2nd respondent dated 16.7.2013, 3.5.2014, 4.11.2015 by taking into consideration of the petitioners representations dated 22.12.2018 and 24.8.2019.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that, land of an extent of Ac.22-31 cents in Old Sy.No.2207 situated in Nellore Town is classified as ‘Inam Land’. The said land was notified as T.D.No.2216. The Inam Fair Register which was prepared in the year 1862 indicates the said fact. While the matter stood thus, one of the Inamdar sold the land to an extent of Ac.4-92 ½ cents to one Audisesha Reddy and others. The said sale deed was questioned in the Court of District Munsif, Nellore by filing O.S.No.640 of 1944 by one Mohd. Abbas Shareef under the premise that the land of an extent of Ac.22-31 cents situated in Nellore is Inam land and the same shall not be alienated. The suit was dismissed and against the said judgment and decree, an appeal was filed, which ended in dismissal. Thereafter, E.P.No.403 of 1945 was filed for recovery of costs and to take deliver of possession of land purchased by Audisesha Reddy and others in an extent of Ac.4-92 ½ cents. 3. During the course of execution, an extent of Ac.8-46 ½ cents in Sy.No.552-B was attached for recovery of costs. The land to an extent of Ac.8-46 ½ cents was sold by way of public auction on 28.04.1946 for recovery of costs awarded to K. Audisesha Reddy. 3. During the course of execution, an extent of Ac.8-46 ½ cents in Sy.No.552-B was attached for recovery of costs. The land to an extent of Ac.8-46 ½ cents was sold by way of public auction on 28.04.1946 for recovery of costs awarded to K. Audisesha Reddy. The said land was purchased in Court auction by one Audeppa Setty and he took possession of the land on 16.11.1947l At the time of attachment of land and delivery of the land to Audisesha Reddy and Audeppa Setty, Commissioner was appointed to conduct survey and submit report. The Commissioner surveyed the land in the year 1946 and submitted his report stating that Ac.3-00 cents out of Ac.16-39 was demarcated and the left over belonging to Barashadee Dargah in which Dargah and tombs are situated. The land which was purchased in the auction was delivered to the auction purchaser. The auction purchaser sold the said land to the third party. Ultimately, the first petitioner purchased the land and came into possession of the land to an extent of Ac.8-46 ½ cents in 1964 and 1970 by virtue of registered sale deeds. So far with regard to Ac.4-92 ½ cents purchased by Audisesha Reddy is concerned, several persons purchased the land in small extents for construction of houses. The said land is situated in the midst of Nellore Municipal Corporation. 4. In the year 1965, the applications were made under Inams Abolition Act. The Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Nellore passed orders for grant of Ryotwari Patta to the land owners on 17.05.1956. In the said proceedings which was determined by the Inams Deputy Tahsildar, the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board represented by it’s Secretary is arrayed as party. The said proceedings have become final. The Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams), Nellore, vide proceedings Rc.No.30/64 recorded a finding that, on perusal of the records, no appeal was preferred by anybody against the decision taken by the Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Nellore in 1959; as such, the said decision has become final. As per the said order, the contention of the A.P. Wakf Board that no notices were served on the Wakf Board is without any merit, as the land was notified as wakf property only in May, 1963 in Supplemental Part-II of A.P. Gazette. The said order further indicates that notification was issued after the order was passed by the Inams Tahsildar in granting pattas. The said order further indicates that notification was issued after the order was passed by the Inams Tahsildar in granting pattas. In the said order, it is also made clear that Inam authorities are required to issue notice to the Wakf Board in respect of the land which was not notified at the time of initiation of proceedings under the Act. 5. The State Wakf Board issued notification on 02.05.1963 notifying total extent of Ac.16-39 cents as Wakf Property which belongs to Dargah, ignoring the judgment in O.S.No.640 of 1964 and the auction proceedings in E.P.No.403 of 1945. Thereafter, based on the said notification, the fifth respondent filed O.S.No.44 of 1973 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Nellore. The Trial Court decreed the suit in part, while dismissing part of the claim. 6. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, father of these petitioners filed A.S.No.497 of 1983. After hearing both parties, the High Court remanded the matter to the Trial Court. During pendency of appeal, the High Court i.e. Appellate Authority directed the trial court to conduct enquiry after giving an opportunity to all the parties in the suit on the issue framed, record a finding and send the same to the Appellate Authority for determination of the appeal. The issue framed by the Appellate Authority is as follows: “Whether the Suit property forms part of Public Wakfs (Extension of Limitation) Act, 1959” 7. The Trial Court after affording an opportunity to all the parties submitted its findings on 01.03.1989 to the High Court, nswering the issue. The finding of the Trial Court was that, certain religious activities are going on in the suit site, but no documents were produced to substantiate that the suit property was dedicated only for which religious purposes in the Dargah. The Trial Court also recorded a finding that documents relied on by the plaintiff therein established that it is “Persin Farmana” and also indicated that it is nt known as to who is the original grantee and finally came to conclusion that, it cannot be said that the suit property was dedicated in favour of Darga, as, such person is professing Islam. Therefore, based on the material, the Appellate Court allowed the First Appeal vide decree and judgment dated A.S.No.497 of 1995 dated 25.07.1989 and set-aside the decree passed in O.S.No.44 of 1973 and dismissed the suit in toto. 8. Therefore, based on the material, the Appellate Court allowed the First Appeal vide decree and judgment dated A.S.No.497 of 1995 dated 25.07.1989 and set-aside the decree passed in O.S.No.44 of 1973 and dismissed the suit in toto. 8. Aggrieved by the decree and judgment in A.S.No.497 of 1995 dated 25.07.1989, the Wakf Board preferred L.P.A No.82 of 1990 and the Division Bench confirmed the finding of the Trial Court with regard to nature of the property and the confirmed the order passed in A.S.No.497 of 1995. Consequently, a Review Petition was filed by the Wakf Board and it was dismissed. Thereafter, the Wakf Board preferred S.L.P.Nos.7153-7155 of 1995 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. But the same were dismissed vide order dated 23.08.1996. Thus, the first petitioner and other land owners succeeded in all the proceedings initiated before the Civil Court, High Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court. 9. While the matter stood thus, one of the land owners filed W.P.No.8848 of 2007 to issue writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay just compensation or to provide alternative land based on the market value in Sy.Nos.117 to 120 of Nellore as proposed by the second respondent therein to the petititoner therein to the extent of her share i.e. 12/20t share in Ac.4-02 ½ cents in C.A.S.No.552/B2, Nellore Bit-I, Nellore District situated between Barasheed Darga and DKW College, Nellore, after calling for records. The said writ petition was disposed of by the High Court on 04.11.2013 directing the respondents therein to take appropriate action as per law, in pursuance of the letter in Rc.D6/6092/2002 dated 13.03.2013 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order, after giving notice to all the stakeholders. 10. For implementation of the said order, the District Collector, Nellore District, addressed a letter to the Principal Secretary to Government, Minority Welfare Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, stating that a report is called for from the third respondent and accordingly, the third respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer submitted report on 16.07.2013. As per the said report, the market value of the land is at the rate of Rs.10,500/- per sq.yd and the issue is involved in court proceedings and the judgment was rendered and as such appropriate proceedings may be initiated as per the Act. As per the said report, the market value of the land is at the rate of Rs.10,500/- per sq.yd and the issue is involved in court proceedings and the judgment was rendered and as such appropriate proceedings may be initiated as per the Act. Thereafter, second respondent/District Collector again addressed a letter to the Special Secretary stating that, the report was submitted to the Government on 05.10.2015 and that the fifth respondent offered to purchase the land in Sy.No.552-B to an extent of Ac.12-39 cents from the land owners, as the High Court passed orders to pay compensation to the land owners within a period of three months and also requested that appropriate acquisition proposals be submitted by the first respondent and to release the funds to initiate acquisition proceedings in terms of letter dated 16.10.2015. 11. It is contended that, unfortunately, no further proceedings are issued by the respondents, as such, the first petitioner submitted representation dated 22.12.2018 in continuation of his earlier representations stating that, it is necessary to take immediate action as the matter is pending before the Government for several years, inspite of the decree passed by the Civil Court and affirmed by the High Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court. The first petitioner also submitted representations dated 24.08.2019 and 16.09.2019, but till date no action was taken by the respondents. Therefore, on account of inaction of the respondents, the petitioners are put to serious inconvenience, besides sufferance and hardship and such inaction on the part of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and requested to issue a direction as stated supra. Notice on all respondents is served. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appeared, but filed no counter affidavit. 12. Respondent No.5/State Wakf Board filed counter affidavit admitting about the litigation while contending that LAOP Nos.20/2005 and 21/2005 are pending before the Senior Civil Judge, Nellore and one Bhoodevamma made a representation to the District Collector that her land of an extent of Ac.0-31 cents which is contiguous to the Ac.4-92 ½ cents also may be acquired and then she filed W.P.No.23894 of 2004 seeking a direction against the Government either to initiate land acquisition proceedings or to pay compensation for 31 cents and the said writ petition is pending. It is further contended that, land owners of Ac.13-39 cents in Sy.No.552/B2 approached the Government to acquire their land or to allot alternative land. It is further contended that, land owners of Ac.13-39 cents in Sy.No.552/B2 approached the Government to acquire their land or to allot alternative land. The Tahsildar negotiated with the land owners and the alternative land which was proposed by the Tahsildar was not accepted by any of the land owners. In order to resolve the dispute between the land owners and management of the Dargah in respect of the land in possession of Dargah, the District Collector addressed letter dated 19.07.1999 to the Government of Andhra Pradesh for payment of compensation at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per acre to an extent of Ac.12-49 cents, on the ground that the land owners are ready to receive compensation in respect of Ac.12-00 in Sy.No.117 to 120 in Kothamitta. Smt. Bhoodevamma after sending representations filed W.P.No.8848 of 2007 seeking a direction against the Government to acquire the land as per recommendations of the District Collector and to pay compensation. The said writ petition was disposed of on 04.11.2013 with the following observations: “For the aforesaid reasons, without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents herein to take appropriate action as per law in pursuance of the letter Rc.D6/6092/2002, dated 13.03.2013, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after giving notice to all the stakeholders. No order as to costs.” 13 It is contended that, as there was delay in implementation of orders passed in the writ petitions, Smt. Bhoodevamma filed C.C.No.887 of 2014 in W.P.No.8848 of 2007 to punish the contemnor. In pursuance of the contempt notice, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued speaking order No.3148/1DM/A/2007 dated 16.11.2016 stating that, it is not feasible to pay compensation or allot alternative land, as per the requisition of the District Collector dated 13.3.2013 and the contempt case is pending for adjudication. 14. Respondent No.5 also further contended that, when the land belongs to Wakf Board, even if patta is granted in favour of the third parties, it is a property of Wakf, as held by the Supreme Court in Syed Ali v. A.P. State Waqf Board, Hyderabad, 1998 (2) SCC 642 . 14. Respondent No.5 also further contended that, when the land belongs to Wakf Board, even if patta is granted in favour of the third parties, it is a property of Wakf, as held by the Supreme Court in Syed Ali v. A.P. State Waqf Board, Hyderabad, 1998 (2) SCC 642 . Therefore, patta if any granted by the Inam Tahsildar in favour of these petitioners predecessor office in title and others, is within the Wakf Board property and the fifth respondent herein alone is the owner of the property and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 15. During hearing, Sri N. Subba Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that, keeping the representations submitted by the first petitioner dated 22.12.2018 and 24.08.2019 pending for such a long time though reports were submitted long back is nothing but an arbitrary act of the respondents and the respondents ought to have disposed of the representations of the first petitioner in either way, i.e. either accepting or rejecting the request of the first petitioner contained in the representation. But, the representations were neither accepted nor rejected, but pending for consideration before the competent authority and said delay in discharging their administrative duty is nothing but failure to exercise due diligence in discharging their duties and such inaction can be said to be arbitrary, illegal and requested to issue a direction. 16. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue contended that, dispute is between these petitioners and Respondent No.5/ A.P. State Wakf Board and the State Government/Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, have nothing to do with the dispute directly, except to the extent of acquisition and payment of compensation to the persons entitled and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 17. Whereas, Sri Shaik Karimullah, learned Standing Counsel for Andhra Pradesh State Waqf Board reiterated the contentions urged in the counter affidavit and requested to dismiss the writ petition, as it is devoid of merits. 18 The dispute between the petitioners and fifth respondent are not in quarrel and the civil litigation disposed of by various courts would disclose the rival claims between the petitioners and fifth respondents claiming title over the property. 18 The dispute between the petitioners and fifth respondent are not in quarrel and the civil litigation disposed of by various courts would disclose the rival claims between the petitioners and fifth respondents claiming title over the property. But, finally the litigation was ended in favour of these petitioners and their predecessors in title, now the contention of fifth respondent is that, even if a patta is granted in favour of ryoths, it is deemed to be an inam granted in favour of Bara Shaheed Dargah. 19. No doubt, if it is a service inam or inam burdened with service, granted in favour of an inamdar by the religious institutions and if patta is granted in favour of a service inamdar by the Inam Deputy Tahsildar as per the provisions of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition And Conversion Into Ryotwari) Act, 1956, (for short ‘Inams Abolition Act), it is deemed to be a patta granted in favour of religious institutions i.e. Bara Shaheed Dargah. 20. In the present case, the property was sold much prior to notification of the property in the year 1963 and the litigation was ended in favour of these petitioners predecessor in title in the year 1944 and 1945 itself. Therefore, the question of selling property by Bara Shaheed Dargah as on date of notification in 1963 does not arise. Even the subsequent proceedings regarding title to the property up to Supreme Court were decided in favour of these petitioners. Therefore, the dispute with regard to title is between the petitioners and Bara Shaheed Dargah, including Waqf Board were finally decided by the competent court and those proceedings cannot be disturbed by this Court while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, at this stage. 21. As the patta was granted in favour of petitioners predecessors in title by Inam Deputy Tahsildar, under the provisions of Inams Abolition Act, it is not an Inam burdened with service to be rendered by Inamdar in religious institutions and it was a separate patta granted in favour of the petitioners predecessor in title, as a landholder/land owner, having acquired title to the property, in view of various proceedings in civil court. If, it is an inam burdened with service and patta is granted in favour of the predecessor in title of this petitioner, the contention of the fifth respondent can be upheld by applying the principle laid down in Syed Ali v. A.P. State Waqf Board, Hyderabad (referred supra). But, the facts are distinguishable in the present case, as the patta was granted by Inam Deputy Tahsildar in favour of these petitioners predecessor in title, as a landholder/land owner, but not as service inamdar for rendering service in the Dargah. Consequently, the principle laid down in the above judgment has no direct or indirect application to the facts of the present case. 22. As the title dispute over the land between the petitioners, Bara Shaheed Dargah and Waqf Board has attained finality in favour of the petitioners predecessor in title and thereafter, the petitioners became the absolute owners and entitled to claim absolute right over the property in dispute. The first petitioner made representation dated 22.12.2018 to the first respondent and representation dated 24.08.2019 to the second respondent. On the basis of the representations, the second respondent/District Collector called for report from the third respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer on 16.07.2013. The second respondent also communicated the same to the first respondent on 03.05.2014 and Special Secretary, Chief Minister Office (Mee Kosam), A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad on 04.11.2015. Though, more than seven years is elapsed from the date of such communication and report, no action has been taken by the respondents to dispose of the representations of the first petitioner dated 22.12.2018 and 24.08.2019. When representations were made and steps were taken based on the representation to comply the request of the first petitioner, keeping the same pending for the last seven years by the official respondents is nothing but disowning their obligation to discharge their public duty which they are legally bound to do. Consequently, such inaction can be described as illegal and arbitrary. 23. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India is limited and such power can be exercised only certain circumstances which are enumerated in “West Bengal Central School Service Commission v. Abdul Halim, (2019) 18 SCC 39 ” wherein the Apex Court reiterated the following principles of judicial review. 23. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India is limited and such power can be exercised only certain circumstances which are enumerated in “West Bengal Central School Service Commission v. Abdul Halim, (2019) 18 SCC 39 ” wherein the Apex Court reiterated the following principles of judicial review. “It is well settled that the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not sit in appeal over an administrative decision. The Court might only examine the decision making process to ascertain whether there was such infirmity in the decision making process, which vitiates the decision and calls for intervention Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In any case, the High Court exercises its extraordinary jurisdiction Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to enforce a fundamental right or some other legal right or the performance of some legal duty. To pass orders in a writ petition, the High Court would necessarily have to address to itself the question of whether there has been breach of any fundamental or legal right of the Petitioner, or whether there has been lapse in performance by the Respondents of a legal duty. The High Court in exercise of its power to issue writs, directions or orders to any person or authority to correct quasi-judicial or even administrative decisions for enforcement of a fundamental or legal right is obliged to prevent abuse of power and neglect of duty by public authorities. In exercise of its power of judicial review, the Court is to see whether the decision impugned is vitiated by an apparent error of law. The test to determine whether a decision is vitiated by error apparent on the face of the record is whether the error is self-evident on the face of the record or whether the error requires examination or argument to establish it. If an error has to be established by a process of reasoning, on points where there may reasonably be two opinions, it cannot be said to be an error on the face of the record, as held by this Court in Satyanarayan v. Mallikarjuna reported in AIR 1960 SC 137 . If an error has to be established by a process of reasoning, on points where there may reasonably be two opinions, it cannot be said to be an error on the face of the record, as held by this Court in Satyanarayan v. Mallikarjuna reported in AIR 1960 SC 137 . If the provision of a statutory Rule is reasonably capable of two or more constructions and one construction has been adopted, the decision would not be open to interference by the writ Court. It is only an obvious misinterpretation of a relevant statutory provision, or ignorance or disregard thereof, or a decision founded on reasons which are clearly wrong in law, which can be corrected by the writ Court by issuance of writ of Certiorari. The sweep of power Under Article 226 may be wide enough to quash unreasonable orders. If a decision is so arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could have ever arrived at it, the same is liable to be struck down by a writ Court. If the decision cannot rationally be supported by the materials on record, the same may be regarded as perverse. However, the power of the Court to examine the reasonableness of an order of the authorities does not enable the Court to look into the sufficiency of the grounds in support of a decision to examine the merits of the decision, sitting as if in appeal over the decision. The test is not what the Court considers reasonable or unreasonable but a decision which the Court thinks that no reasonable person could have taken, which has led to manifest injustice. The writ Court does not interfere, because a decision is not perfect.” 24. By applying the principles laid down in the above judgment to the present facts of the case, the inaction of the official respondents i.e. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 is declared as illegal and arbitrary. Consequently, I find that it is a fit case to issue a direction to Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 take appropriate action on the representations of the first petitioner dated 22.12.2018 and 24.08.2019, keeping in view of the communication of the second respondent/District Collector dated 13.03.2013. 25. In the result, writ petition is allowed, declaring the action of Respondent Nos. Consequently, I find that it is a fit case to issue a direction to Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 take appropriate action on the representations of the first petitioner dated 22.12.2018 and 24.08.2019, keeping in view of the communication of the second respondent/District Collector dated 13.03.2013. 25. In the result, writ petition is allowed, declaring the action of Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 as illegal and arbitrary, while directing the respondents to take appropriate action on the representations of the first petitioner dated 22.12.2018 and 24.08.2019, keeping in view of the communication of the second respondent/District Collector dated 13.03.2013. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed.