Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 665 (TS)

Syed Haji Ali v. State of Telangana

2023-09-25

MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

body2023
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner herein, claims to be an interested person in the Waqf properties, filed the present Writ Petition stating that the lands admeasuring Acs.197.32 gts., situated in Sy.Nos.78/1 to 78/21 of Saidapur Village, Kondapur Mandal, Sanga Reddy District, are under the management of Dargah Hazrath Bande Shah and the said properties were notified as Waqf properties at Sl.No.20106 of the Andhra Pradesh Gazette No.48-A, dtd. 29/11/2001 and respondent No.5 is entertaining registration of Sale Deeds in favour of third parties in respect of the said lands. 2. The petitioner also claims to have submitted a representation, dtd. 11/1/2016, to respondent No.5 alleging encroachment of the said lands by third parties and respondent No.4 had issued proceedings, dtd. 11/2/2016, directing respondent No.5 to conduct a detailed enquiry into the matter. The petitioner also claims to have got issued a legal notice to respondent No.5 to correct the entries in the Revenue records thereby deleting the names of unauthorized persons and respondent No.5 stated to have issued a reply bearing letter No.B/182/2018, dtd. 17/4/2019, stating that the entries were updated during Land Records Updation Programme in the name of Waqf. It is also stated that the said registrations were made in favour of third parties i.e., M/s. Green Rich Retreat LLP and the name of the said Company was also updated on Dharani Portal vide Khata No.60360 and 60361. By stating as above, the petitioner approached this Court questioning the action of respondent No.5 in entertaining the registration of documents in respect of the subject lands in favour of third parties. 3. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court, having entertained the Writ Petition by an order, dtd. 6/7/2023, directed respondent Nos.3 to 5 not to execute any Sale Deeds in respect of the subject lands. Respondent No.7 herein got itself impleaded by filing an application and also filed a vacate petition seeking vacation of the interim order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the subject property is already notified as a Waqf property by way of Gazette Notification issued under Sec. 5 of the Waqf Act, 1995 (for short 'the Act, 1995') and the same is also included in the list of Prohibited Properties and as such, respondent No.5 is not entitled to entertain any registrations of the documents in respect of the subject property. He also contended that in yet another Writ Petition filed by some third parties in Writ Petition No.23442 of 2020 an interim order was passed directing both the parties therein to maintain status quo in respect of the subject lands in all respects and the said interim order is still in force. It is further contended that in terms of G.O.Ms.No.15, Minorities Welfare (Establishment.1) Department, dtd. 22/9/2020, respondent No.5 is not entitled to entertain registrations in respect of the subject property. 5. On the other hand, Sri N.Sreedhar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7, contended that the subject lands were vested with the State on Abolition of Inams under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act, 1955') and in terms of the provisions of the Act, 1955, the Occupancy Rights Certificate were issued in favour of third parties by the Revenue Divisional Officer and the said Occupancy Rights Certificate were confirmed by the Appellate authorities. According to him, the Occupancy Rights Certificate have become final and so long as the said Occupancy Rights Certificate are in force, any claim that is made in respect of the subject lands as Waqf properties is not sustainable. He further contended that the very same Gazette Notification, dtd. 29/11/2001, under which the subject lands are sought to be treated as Waqf properties, was already suspended by this Court in a batch of Writ Petitions including Writ Petition No.20081 of 2022, by an order, dtd. 26/4/2022. He also contended that the petitioner herein has no locus standi to file the present Writ Petition as he has no personal interest in the subject property and the claim of the petitioner that he is the person interested within the meaning of Clause (k) of Sec. 3 of the Act, 1995, is not substantiated by filing any material before this Court. He further contended that in various Writ Petitions filed by different parties, this Court passed several interim orders therein directing the Registering authorities to receive, process and register the documents in respect of the subject properties as such, the order obtained by the petitioner in this Writ Petition is running contrary to the orders passed by this Court in a batch of Writ Petitions and the copies of such interim orders passed are also placed on record. He further contended that the petitioner herein, having been fully aware that the petitioner herein has acquired interest in the subject property and having referred to the petitioner in paragraph No.10 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, deliberately has not chosen to implead respondent No.7 herein though he is necessary and proper party to the Writ Petition. He also contended that there are several other third parties, who are affected by the interim orders passed by this Court, but the petitioner deliberately suppressed such facts and failed to implead all such persons as parties to the present Writ Petition and filed the present Writ Petition with a mala fide intension to cause prejudice to the parties. 6. This Court carefully considered the submissions made by the counsel on either side and perused the material on record. 7. It is not the case of the petitioner that he has got any personal interest in the subject landed property. But, he purported to be a person interested within the meaning of Clause (k) of Sec. 3 of the Act, 1995 and filed the present Writ Petition. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the petitioner except stating that he is an interested person in the Waqf Properties, no other material is placed before this Court in support of his contention. In terms of Clause (k) of Sec. 3 of the Act, 1995, the person interested in a Waqf means any person who is entitled to receive any pecuniary or other benefits from the Waqf and includes any person who has right to offer prayer or to perform any religious rite in a Mosque, Eidgah, etc., and under sub-Clause (ii) of Clause (k), the waqif and any descendant of the Waqif and the Mutawalli also comes within the meaning of person interested in a Waqf. It is not the case of the petitioner herein that he is entitled to receive any pecuniary or other benefits from the Waqf in question. But, he claims to be a person interested in the Waqf properties and how he is interested in the Waqf properties is not stated. It is not the case of the petitioner herein that he is entitled to receive any pecuniary or other benefits from the Waqf in question. But, he claims to be a person interested in the Waqf properties and how he is interested in the Waqf properties is not stated. It is not the case of the petitioner that he is claiming any right in connection with offering prayer or to perform any religious rite in a Mosque, Eidgah, etc., but he claims to be person interested in the alleged Waqf properties in question. As already noted above, nothing is placed on record to show as to how the petitioner is interested in the Waqf properties. A person having interest in the Waqf and a person interested in the Waqf properties are two different connotations and they are not similar to each other. Unless the petitioner satisfies the definition of person interested as provided under Clause (k) of Sec. 3 of the Act, 1995, the petitioner cannot be said to be having any locus standi to file the present Writ petition. On his own saying, as stated in the affidavit, the petitioner does not fall within the meaning of person interested in a Waqf as defined under Clause (k) of Sec. 3 of the Act, 1995. On this ground alone, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. Even assuming that the petitioner falls within the meaning of person interested in a Waqf and he has got any grievance on the mis-management of the Waqf or Waqf properties, it is for the petitioner at the first instance to approach respondent No.6 by invoking Sec. 70 of the Waqf Act, 1995, seeking an inquiry into such mis-management of the Waqf. In case, if any person interested makes an application under Sec. 70 of the Waqf Act, 1995, to respondent No.6 supported by an affidavit and if the respondent-Waqf Board is satisfied, it may initiate an inquiry into the matter by following the procedure as provided under Sec. 71 of the Act, 1995. But, in the instant case, the petitioner never approached respondent No.6 or the Mutawalli of the concerned Waqf institute alleging mis-management or with any other request at any point of time and nothing is indicated in the affidavit in that regard. But, in the instant case, the petitioner never approached respondent No.6 or the Mutawalli of the concerned Waqf institute alleging mis-management or with any other request at any point of time and nothing is indicated in the affidavit in that regard. However, the petitioner claimed to have submitted a representation before respondent No.5 on 11/1/2016 and an action is also stated to have been initiated on such representation by respondent No.4. But, a perusal of the said proceedings, dtd. 11/2/2016, does not refer to any representation submitted by the petitioner nor the petitioner placed before this Court any such representation, dtd. 11/1/2016, to substantiate his claim. In the absence of any such steps taken by the petitioner firstly to approach respondent No.6 or any other authorities, straight away approaching this Court by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under the Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be permitted. 8. Further, the basis for the petitioner to claim the subject properties as Waqf properties is the Gazette Notification, dtd. 29/11/2001, published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette. As seen from the various interim orders placed on record including the interim order, dtd. 26/4/2022, passed in Writ Petition No.20081 of 2022, the said Gazette Notification was suspended by this Court by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court and in several other Writ Petitions i.e., Writ Petition Nos.27735, 27817, 27974, 32225 and 32226 of 2022, the registering authorities were further directed to receive, process and register the documents in respect of the subject property. While the said Writ Petitions are pending before this Court, respondent No.5 is entertaining the registrations pursuant to the interim orders passed in the said Writ Petitions, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition suppressing the fact of pendency of various Writ Petitions before this Court and without even impleading the effected parties as party respondents to this Writ Petition. Thus, the basis on which the present Writ Petition is filed i.e., Gazette Notification, dtd. 29/11/2001, is not available because the same was stood suspended by the orders passed by this Court. 9. Thus, the basis on which the present Writ Petition is filed i.e., Gazette Notification, dtd. 29/11/2001, is not available because the same was stood suspended by the orders passed by this Court. 9. Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court passed an interim order in another Writ Petition vide Writ Petition No.23442 of 2020 directing both the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the subject land is concerned, the said order cannot be a basis to create any right to the petitioner to file an independent Writ Petition. 10. In the light of the above, in the considered view of this Court, the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present Writ Petition. Further even on merits also the petitioner failed to make out any substantial ground that needs interference of this Court under the Article 226 of the Constitution of India, especially in view of the fact that, respondent No.6 and third parties are agitating their rights in other batch of Writ Petitions in respect of the very same subject property. 11. Insofar as the contention raised by the petitioner by placing reliance on G.O.Ms.No.15, dtd. 22/9/2020 is concerned, the same applies to the Waqf properties so long as the said properties were treated as Waqf properties. But, in the instant case, the notification under which the subject lands were declared as Waqf properties was already suspended by this Court and therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the said G.O.Ms.No.15 applies to the subject lands cannot be accepted. Further, the claim of respondent No.7 basing upon the Ownership Rights Certificate is also not seriously disputed by the petitioner. However, that is a matter that can be looked into in the lis between respondent No.6 and third parties. 12. In the light of the above, this Court does not find any merit in the Writ Petition and the same is accordingly, dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any in this Writ Petition, shall stand dismissed. No costs.