Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 769 (TS)

Munawar Sultana v. Gosula Ramulu

2023-12-04

ALOK ARADHE, N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

body2023
ORDER: ALOK ARADHE, J. These intra-court appeals emanate from the common order dated 24.03.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the order dated 07.11.2006 passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District has been set aside and the writ petitions have been allowed. In this order, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the learned Single Judge. (i) FACTS: 2. Facts giving rise to filing of these appeals briefly stated are that one Gosula Muthaiah and Sama Narasimham were in cultivating possession of land measuring Acs.25.04 guntas each of survey Nos.113 to 120 of Karmanghat Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter referred to as ‘subject land’). Late Mohd. Miskeen was the inamdar of the subject land and Mohd. Bikkan was one of the sons of aforesaid inamdar. The rights of aforesaid Gosula Muthaiah and Sama Yadi Reddy (hereinafter referred to as ‘protected tenants’) were recognized as protected tenants under Sections 34 and 35 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. 3. On the basis of an enquiry report dated 07.08.1965 submitted by the Commissioner of Wakfs in an enquiry which was conducted under Section 4(4) of the Wakf Act, 1954, the State Government published a notification dated 27.07.2006 by which subject lands were declared as wakf property. 4. The aforesaid notification dated 27.07.2006 was subject matter of challenge in W.P.Nos.20868, 20869 and 20870 of 2006. 5. The legal heirs of the protected tenants filed an application under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the 1955 Act’) before the Revenue Divisional Officer, who inter alia held that the legal heirs of protected tenants were in possession of the subject land on the date of vesting of the land i.e., 20.07.1955 as well as 01.11.1973. It was further held that the classification of the subject lands was changed from year to year without any valid orders. However, the Revenue Divisional Officer by order dated 08.05.1998 concluded that in view of the inconsistency of entries in the revenue records, with regard to the nature of the lands, the legal representatives of protected tenants are not entitled to occupancy rights certificate. 6. However, the Revenue Divisional Officer by order dated 08.05.1998 concluded that in view of the inconsistency of entries in the revenue records, with regard to the nature of the lands, the legal representatives of protected tenants are not entitled to occupancy rights certificate. 6. The aforesaid order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer was questioned by the legal heirs of the protected tenants in an appeal under Section 24 of the 1955 Act before the Joint Collector. The Joint Collector by an order dated 07.11.2006 by placing reliance on the notification dated 27.07.2006 issued by the State Government inter alia held that the subject lands are wakf properties and only an institution can be granted occupancy rights certificate in view of the proviso to Section 4(1) of the 1955 Act and not individuals. (ii) ORDER OF LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE: 7. The legal representatives of the protected tenants have questioned the order passed by the Joint Collector in W.P.Nos.24461, 24462, 24463 of 2006 and W.P.No.8140 of 2007. The learned Single Judge by an order dated 24.03.2017 inter alia held that the writ petitions are maintainable notwithstanding the alternative remedy. It was further held that common judgment in L.P.A. Nos.76 and 78 of 2000 and batch operates as res judicata and binds the Wakf Board and the legal heirs of late Mohd.Miskeen. The learned Single Judge set aside the order dated 07.11.2006 passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District and remitted matter to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy District to consider as to who amongst the petitioners in the writ petitions are entitled to occupancy rights certificate under the 1955 Act. It was directed that neither the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board nor the legal heirs of the protected tenants shall be allowed to participate in the said proceedings and the proceedings shall be completed within a period of three months. Accordingly, the writ petitions were allowed. In the aforesaid factual background, these intra-court appeals have been filed. (iii) SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS IN W.A.No.683 OF 2018: 8. Accordingly, the writ petitions were allowed. In the aforesaid factual background, these intra-court appeals have been filed. (iii) SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS IN W.A.No.683 OF 2018: 8. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants in W.A.No.683 of 2018 while inviting the attention of this Court to Sections 6, 7 and 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995 has submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in examining the validity of the notification dated 27.07.2006 declaring the subject land to be wakf property in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that part of the property namely land measuring Acs.8.13 guntas of survey No.115 was acquired under the provisions of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1952 Act’). It is also submitted that on 13.08.1982, an arbitrator was appointed under Section 8(1)(b) of the 1952 Act and an award dated 25.03.1985 was passed. The Arbitrator held that the land measuring Acs.8.13 guntas of survey No.115 is not a wakf property. It is contended that there is no time limit for issuance of notification under Section 5(2) of the Act and there is no delay in issuance of notification dated 27.07.2006. It is further contended that writ petitioners have no right rights in respect of land in question. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa vs. Ram Chandra Dev, AIR 1964 SC 685 . 9. It is pointed out that the notification issued under the 1952 Act was challenged in a writ petition, namely W.P.No.4684 of 1987, which was dismissed by an order dated 10.07.1987 by a learned Single Judge of this Court. It is further pointed out that the order passed by the learned Single Judge was affirmed in an appeal by order dated 10.11.1988 passed in W.A.No.1768 of 1987. It is also pointed out that the aforesaid order of the Division Bench has attained finality. 10. It is urged that the award dated 25.03.1985 is a nullity, as under Section 8(1)(b) of the 1952 Act, only a Judge of the High Court could be appointed as arbitrator, whereas one Mr. Neeladri Rao, Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Hyderabad was appointed as an arbitrator. 10. It is urged that the award dated 25.03.1985 is a nullity, as under Section 8(1)(b) of the 1952 Act, only a Judge of the High Court could be appointed as arbitrator, whereas one Mr. Neeladri Rao, Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Hyderabad was appointed as an arbitrator. It is contended that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that the issues raised in these writ petitions have to be considered by the Wakf Tribunal. It is also contended that the validity of the title deeds cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition. In support of the said submissions, reliance has been placed on the decisions in Kiran Singh vs. Chaman Paswan, AIR 1954 SC 340 , Sohan Lal vs. Union of India, 1957 SCC OnLine SC 39 : 1957 SCR 738 : AIR 1957 SC 529 , State of Mysore vs. Mysore Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd., AIR 1958 SC 1002 , Thansingh Nathmal vs. Supdt. of Taxes, 1964 SCC OnLine SC 13 : (1964) 6 SCR 654 : AIR 1964 SC 1419 , Mohan Pandey vs. Usha Rani Rajgaria (Smt.), (1992) 4 SCC 61 : AIR 1993 SC 1225 , State of Rajasthan vs. Bhawani Singh, 1993 Supp (1) SCC 306 : AIR 1992 SC 1018 , Whirlpool Corpn. of Taxes, 1964 SCC OnLine SC 13 : (1964) 6 SCR 654 : AIR 1964 SC 1419 , Mohan Pandey vs. Usha Rani Rajgaria (Smt.), (1992) 4 SCC 61 : AIR 1993 SC 1225 , State of Rajasthan vs. Bhawani Singh, 1993 Supp (1) SCC 306 : AIR 1992 SC 1018 , Whirlpool Corpn. vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, (1998) 8 SCC 1 , Allauddin Charities and Zakath Wakf vs. Hameed Ali, 2001 SCC OnLine AP 952 : (2002) 1 ALD 67 : (2002) 2 ALT 534 (DB), Chief Engineer, Hydel Project vs. Ravinder Nath, (2008) 2 SCC 350 , Bhoruka Textiles Ltd. vs. Kashmiri Rice Industries, (2009) 7 SCC 521 , Shalini Shyam Shetty vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329 , W.B.Wakf Board vs. Anis Fatma Begum, (2010) 14 SCC 588 , Mir Qamar Hasan Razvi vs. A.P.State Wakf Board, 2011 SCC OnLine AP 323 : (2011) 5 ALD 407 , Smt.D.Suneela vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh (Order dated 23.02.2012 in W.P.No.33738 of 2011), B.Shanker vs. A.P. State Wakf Board (order dated 25.04.2012 in W.P.No.11788 of 2012), Pilli Anjaneyulu Yadav vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh (order dated 04.09.2012 in W.A.No.466 of 2012), Roshina T. vs. Abdul Azeez K.T., (2019) 2 SCC 329 , Indore Development Authority (LAPSE-5 J.) vs. Manoharlal, (2020) 8 SCC 129 , Shubhas Jain vs. Rajeshwari Shivam, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 562, Rashid Wali Beg vs. Farid Pindari, (2022) 4 SCC 414 and M/s. Visweswara Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd. (Order dated 24.08.2023 in W.A.No.697 of 2023). (iv) SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF WAKF BOARD: 11. Learned Senior Counsel for the Wakf Board while referring to the revenue records between the period from 1839 to 1984 – 1985, submitted that the property in question is a wakf property. It is pointed out that in the year 1965, an enquiry was conducted by the Commissioner of Wakfs, Hyderabad, into the nature of the subject land wherein all the writ petitioners as well as their predecessors-in-title were parties. A report was thereafter prepared on 07.08.1965 which was not assailed by anyone including the predecessors of the writ petitioners. It is further pointed out that the Tahsildar, by an order dated 04.11.1969, recorded the fact that the predecessors-in-title of the writ petitioners had accepted that the lands belong to Masjid. 12. It is also contended that Mohd. A report was thereafter prepared on 07.08.1965 which was not assailed by anyone including the predecessors of the writ petitioners. It is further pointed out that the Tahsildar, by an order dated 04.11.1969, recorded the fact that the predecessors-in-title of the writ petitioners had accepted that the lands belong to Masjid. 12. It is also contended that Mohd. Miskeen filed petitions under the Atiyat Enquiries Act on 17.03.1979, 31.03.1979 and 03.03.1980 for sanction of Aityat Succession Rights. It is submitted that the Revenue Divisional Officer after perusal of the ryotwari patta certificates, by an order dated 17.01.1981, held that the same were in the nature of Darga Hazrat Shah Inayat. It is further submitted that the award passed by the arbitrator under the provisions of the 1952 Act was set aside by an order dated 16.07.1999 in A.S.No.1603 of 1985. It is also pointed out that the notifications issued under the 1952 Act were quashed vide order dated 10.07.1987 passed in W.P.No.4684 of 1987. 13. It is contended that in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the issue whether or not a property is a wakf property cannot be adjudicated. It is submitted that the disputed questions of title cannot in any case be decided in a writ petition and the appropriate remedy for the writ petitioners is to approach the Wakf Tribunal under Section 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995. It is further submitted that once the property is wakf property, it is always a wakf property. 14. It is argued that the observations made in a proceeding which is without jurisdiction does not amount to res judicata. Therefore, the observations made in the order dated 24.10.2005 passed in L.P.A.Nos.76 and 78 of 2000 by a Division Bench of this Court are of no assistance to the writ petitioners. It is contended that Section 112 of the Wakf Act, 1995, is widely worded and the proceeding initiated under the 1954 Act is saved. It is further contended that if the land is a wakf land, the question of grant of occupancy rights does not arise. It is contended that Section 112 of the Wakf Act, 1995, is widely worded and the proceeding initiated under the 1954 Act is saved. It is further contended that if the land is a wakf land, the question of grant of occupancy rights does not arise. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Chief Inspector of Mines vs. Karam Chand Thapar, AIR 1961 SC 838 , Sayyed Ali vs. A.P.Wakf Board, Hyderabad, (1998) 2 SCC 642 and T.N. Wakf Board vs. Hathija Ammal, (2001) 8 SCC 528 . (v) SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF WRIT PETITIONERS: 15. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioners while inviting the attention of this Court to the relief claimed in the writ petitions submitted that the writ petitioners had only assailed the validity of notification dated 27.07.2006 issued under Section 5(2) of 1995 Act notifying the lands as the wakf property. It is further submitted that in the writ petitions, no disputed questions of fact arise for consideration. It is also submitted that a survey was conducted on 07.08.1965 and the notification impugned in the writ petitions was issued after an inordinate delay of 41 years for which no explanation has been offered. It is contended that the aforesaid notification has been issued solely with a view to interdict the judgment of this Court. It is contended that the Wakf Tribunal cannot decide the issue of validity of the notification and the decision in Rashid Wali Beg (supra) has been subsequently clarified by the Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh (Now State of Telangana) vs. A.P. State Wakf Board, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 159. It is urged that under Section 8(1)(b) of the 1952 Act, any person qualified to be appointed as a High Court Judge can be appointed as an arbitrator. No factual foundation in the pleadings has been made with regard to challenge of the award on this ground. It is also argued that against the award passed by the arbitrator, no appeal was preferred by the Wakf Board and it has accepted the award passed by the arbitrator. 16. It is argued that a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 10.11.1988 in W.A.No.1768 of 1987 held that the Mutawallis have no locus. It is also argued that against the award passed by the arbitrator, no appeal was preferred by the Wakf Board and it has accepted the award passed by the arbitrator. 16. It is argued that a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 10.11.1988 in W.A.No.1768 of 1987 held that the Mutawallis have no locus. It is further argued that only a completed action under Section 112 of the Wakf Act, 1995, is protected. It is contended that preparation of survey report is an inchoate action and the same is not saved under Section 112 of the Wakf Act, 1995, and therefore, does not enure to the benefit of either the Mutawallis or the Wakf Board. It is further contended that in previous rounds of litigation, it has already been concluded that the subject land is not wakf land and liberty was given by a Division Bench of this Court only with regard to nature of inam and not otherwise. 17. It is argued that the Supreme Court while dismissing the special leave petition vide order dated 26.10.2007 only granted the liberty to Mutawalli to urge all the contentions before the Joint Collector before whom the appeal is stated to be pending. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on the order dated 03.10.2023 in W.A.No.945 of 2023 and the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh (Now State of Telangana) vs. A.P. State Wakf Board (supra). Learned Senior Counsel has also argued that the decisions of the Supreme Court in Hathija Ammal (supra) and Sayyed Ali (supra) are distinguishable and do not apply to the facts of instant cases. It is also contended that void order needs to be challenged before the higher forum and in case the same is not challenged, it binds the party. He placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. M.K. Kunhikannan Nambiar Manjeri Manikoth, (1996) 1 SCC 435 . (vi) SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: 18. It is also contended that void order needs to be challenged before the higher forum and in case the same is not challenged, it binds the party. He placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. M.K. Kunhikannan Nambiar Manjeri Manikoth, (1996) 1 SCC 435 . (vi) SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: 18. Learned counsel for the legal representatives of respondent No.5 in W.A.No.1355 of 2018, W.A.No.1410 of 2018; the legal representatives of respondent No.6 in W.A.No.1409 of 2018, W.A.No.1427 of 2018; and the legal representatives of respondent No.13 in W.A.No.1753 of 2018 has submitted that the Wakf Board had placed reliance on a judgment passed in A.S.No.1603 of 1985 which was set aside in L.P.A.Nos.76 and 78 of 2000, whereas in the instant appeals, reliance is placed on A.S.No.1603 of 1985. It is, therefore, submitted that the Wakf Board cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate. (vii) SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER: 19. Learned Senior Counsel and Special Government Pleader has adopted the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the Wakf Board. (viii) REJOINDER SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF WAKF BOARD: 20. Learned Senior Counsel for the Wakf Board by way of rejoinder submitted that the provisions of Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Wakf Act, 1954, are pari materia to Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Wakf Act, 1995. It is also pointed out that the judgment in the writ appeal dated 10.11.1988 is without jurisdiction and the same only pertains to the land measuring Acs.8.13 guntas of survey No.115. It is also pointed out that there is no adjudication with regard to the nature of lands in respect of Survey Nos.113 to 120. It is also pointed out that the decision of the learned Single Judge in B.Gowra Reddy vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2002 SCC OnLine AP 16 : AIR 2002 AP 313 is distinguishable and does not apply to the facts of the case. (ix) RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS: 21. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and perused the record. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of relevant statutory provisions. The Wakf Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1954 Act’) was enacted to provide for better administration and supervision of wakfs. (ix) RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS: 21. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and perused the record. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of relevant statutory provisions. The Wakf Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1954 Act’) was enacted to provide for better administration and supervision of wakfs. The 1954 Act was repealed by the Wakf Act, 1995 which was enacted with an object to provide for better administration of wakfs and matters connected therewith. 22. Section 4 of the 1954 Act deals with survey, whereas Section 5 provides for publication of list of wakfs. Section 6 deals with disputes regarding wakfs. The relevant provisions of the 1954 Act and the Wakf Act, 1995 prior to its amendment by Act No.27 of 2013 dated 01.11.2013 are extracted below for the facility of reference:- Wakf Act, 1954 Wakf Act, 1995 1. Section 4 – “4. Preliminary survey of wakfs. (1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint for the State a Survey Commissioner of Wakfs and as many Additional or Assistant Survey Commissioners of Wakfs as may be necessary for the purpose of making a survey of wakfs existing in the State at the date of the commencement of this Act. (2) All Additional and Assistant Survey Commissioners of Wakfs shall perform their functions under this Act under the general supervision and control of the Survey Commissioner of Wakfs. (3) The Survey Commissioner shall, after making such inquiry as he may consider necessary, submit his report at the date of the commencement of this Act in the State or any part thereof, to the State Government containing the following particulars, namely, (a) the number of wakfs in the State, or as the case may be, any part thereof, showing the Shia wakfs and Sunni wakfs separately; (b) the nature and objects of each wakf; (c) the gross income of the property comprised in each wakf; (d) the amount of land revenue, cesses, rates and taxes payable in respect of such property; (e) the expenses incurred in the realisation of the income and the pay or other remuneration of the mutawalli of each wakf; and (f) such other particulars relating to each wakf as may be prescribed. (4) The Survey Commissioner shall, while making any inquiry, have the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), in respect of the following matters, namely:— (a) summoning and examining any witness; (b) requiring the discovery and production of any document; (c) requisitioning any public record from any court or office; (d) issuing commissions for the examination of any witness or accounts; (e) making any local inspection or local investigation; (f) any other matter which may be prescribed. (5) If, during any such inquiry, any dispute arises as to whether a particular wakf is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf and there are clear indications in the deed of wakf as to its nature, the dispute shall be decided on the basis of such deed. 1. Section 4 – 4. Preliminary survey of Wakfs— (1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint for the State a Survey Commissioner of Wakfs and as many Additional or Assistant Survey Commissioners of Wakfs as may be necessary for the purpose of making a survey of Wakfs existing in the State at the date of the commencement of this Act. (2) All Additional and Assistant Survey Commissioners of Wakfs shall perform their functions under this Act under the general supervision and control of the Survey Commissioner of Wakfs. (3) The Survey Commissioner shall, after making such inquiry as he may consider necessary, submit his report, in respect of Wakfs existing at the date of the commencement of this Act in the State or any part thereof, to the State Government containing the following particulars, namely:-- (a) the number of Wakfs in the State showing the Shia Wakfs and Sunni Wakfs separately; (b) the nature and objects of each Wakf; (c) the gross income of the property comprised in each Wakf; (d) the amount of land revenue, cesses, rates and taxes payable in respect of each Wakf; (e) the expenses incurred in the realisation of the income and the pay or other remuneration of the mutawalli of each Wakf; and (f) such other particulars relating to each Wakf as may be prescribed. (4) The Survey Commissioner shall, while making any inquiry, have the same powers as are vested in a civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) in respect of the following matters, namely:-- (a) summoning and examining any witness; (b) requiring the discovery and production of any document; (c) requisitioning any public record from any court or office; (d) issuing, commissions for the examination of any witness or accounts; (e) making any local inspection or local investigation; (f) such other matters as may be prescribed. (5) If, during any such inquiry, any dispute arises as to whether a particular Wakf is a Shia Wakf or Sunni Wakf and there are clear indications in the deed of Wakf as to its nature, the dispute shall be decided on the basis of such deed. (6) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct the Survey Commissioner to make a second or subsequent survey of Wakf properties in the State and the provisions of subsections (2), (3), (4) and (5) shall apply to such survey as they apply to a survey directed under subsection (1): Provided that no such second or subsequent survey shall be made until the expiry of a period of twenty years from the date on which the report in relation to the immediately previous survey was submitted under sub-section (3): 2. Section 5 - Publication of list of wakfs.— (1) On receipt of a report under sub-section (3) of section 4, the State Government shall forward a copy of the same to the Board. (2) The Board shall examine the report forwarded to it under subsection (1) and publish in the Official Gazette a list of wakfs existing in the State, or as the case may be, the part of the State ------------- ------------- 1. Subs. by Act 38 of 1969, s.4, for “in the State” (with retrospective effect). 2. Subs. By s.5, ibid., for “existing in the State” (with retrospective effect). 108 to which the report relates, and containing such particulars as may be prescribed. 2. Section 5 - 5. Publication of list of Wakfs:.— (1) On receipt of a report under sub-section (3) of section 4, the State Government shall forward a copy of the same to the Board. By s.5, ibid., for “existing in the State” (with retrospective effect). 108 to which the report relates, and containing such particulars as may be prescribed. 2. Section 5 - 5. Publication of list of Wakfs:.— (1) On receipt of a report under sub-section (3) of section 4, the State Government shall forward a copy of the same to the Board. (2) The Board shall examine the report forwarded to it under subsection (1) and publish in the Official Gazette a list of Sunni Wakfs or Shia Wakfs, in the State, whether in existence at the commencement of this Act or coming into existence thereafter, to which the report released, and containing such other particulars as may be prescribed. 3. Section 6 - 6. Disputes regarding wakfs.— (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under subsection (2) of section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf, the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil court in respect of such matter shall be final: Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under sub-section (2) of Section 5: Provided further that in the case of the list of wakfs relating to any part of the State and published or purporting to have been published before the commencement of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1969, (38 of 1969.) Such suit may be entertained by the civil court within the period of one year from such commencement. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), no proceeding under this Act in respect of any wakf shall be stayed by reason only of the pendency of any such suit or of any appeal or other proceeding arising out of such suit. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), no proceeding under this Act in respect of any wakf shall be stayed by reason only of the pendency of any such suit or of any appeal or other proceeding arising out of such suit. (3) The Survey Commissioner shall not be made a party to any suit under sub-section (1) and no suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against him in respect of anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done in pursuance of this Act or any rules made thereunder. (4) The list of wakfs published under subsection (2) of Section 5 shall, unless it is modified in pursuance of a decision of the civil court under sub-section (1), be final and conclusive. 3. Section 6 - 6. Disputes regarding Wakfs.--(1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as Wakf property in the list of Wakfs is Wakf property or not or whether a Wakf specified in such list is a Shia Wakf or Sunni Wakf, the Board or the Mutawalli of the Wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a Tribunal for the decision of the question and the decision of the Tribunal in respect of such matter shall be final: Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the Tribunal after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of Wakfs: Explanation: For the purposes of this Section and Section 7, the expression “any person interested therein”, shall, in relation to any property specified as Wakf property in the list of Wakfs published after the commencement of the Act, shall include also every person who, though not interested in the Wakf concerned, is interested in such property and to whom a reasonable opportunity had been afforded to represent his case by notice served on him in that behalf during the course of the relevant enquiry under Section 4. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), no proceeding under this Act in respect of any Wakf shall be stayed by reason only of the pendency of any such suit or of any appeal or other proceeding arising out of such suit. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), no proceeding under this Act in respect of any Wakf shall be stayed by reason only of the pendency of any such suit or of any appeal or other proceeding arising out of such suit. (3) The Survey Commissioner shall not be made a party to any suit under sub-section (1) and no suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against him in respect of anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done in pursuance of this Act or any rules made thereunder. (4) The list of Wakfs shall, unless it is modified in pursuance of a decision of the Tribunal under sub-section (1), be final and conclusive. (5) On and from the commencement of this Act in a State, no suit or other legal proceeding shall be instituted or commenced in a court in that State in relation to any question referred to in sub-section (1). 23. The Supreme Court in Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy vs. Syed Jalal, (2017) 13 SCC 174 has considered Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the 1954 Act as well as the 1995 Act and has held that Sections 4 to 6 contained in both the Acts are almost pari materia with each other. Paras 12, 13 and 16 are extracted below for the facility of reference: 12. Section 4 of the 1954 Act, empowered the State Government to appoint a State Commissioner, and as many Additional and Assistant Survey Commissioners of Wakf as may be necessary, by a notification in the Official Gazette for the purpose of making survey of wakf properties existing within the State. The Survey Commissioner after making a survey of wakf properties would submit his report to the State Government containing various particulars as mentioned in sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 4 of the Act. Section 5 of the 1954 Act mandated that on receipt of such report from the Survey Commissioner made under sub-section (3) of Section 4, the State Government should forward a copy of the same to the Wakf Board. The Wakf Board would examine the report forwarded to it and publish in Official Gazette, the list of wakfs in the State. Section 5 of the 1954 Act mandated that on receipt of such report from the Survey Commissioner made under sub-section (3) of Section 4, the State Government should forward a copy of the same to the Wakf Board. The Wakf Board would examine the report forwarded to it and publish in Official Gazette, the list of wakfs in the State. For resolving the disputes regarding wakfs, Section 6 of the 1954 Act, provided jurisdictional civil court as a forum and decision of civil court in respect of such matters should be final. It was also clarified that no such suit should be entertained by the civil court, after the expiry of one year from the date of publication of the list of wakfs as per sub-section (2) of Section 5. Subsection (4) of Section 6 stated that the list of wakfs published under sub-section (2) of Section 5 shall be final and conclusive unless such list is modified on the direction of the civil court. 13. The provisions found in Sections 5 and 6 of the Wakf Act, 1995 and the 1954 Act are almost akin to each other. However, the change brought in by Parliament under the 1995 Act is that, in the case of dispute regarding wakfs, the aggrieved party needs to approach the Wakf Tribunal constituted under Section 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995 and consequently, the jurisdiction of the civil court is taken away. Except the aforesaid change, no other substantial modification is found in those provisions. Section 7 of the 1995 Act empowers the Tribunal to determine the disputes, regarding auqaf/wakfs, the particulars of which are specified therein. 16. Thus, it is amply clear that the conducting of survey by the Survey Commissioner and preparing a report and forwarding the same to the State or the Wakf Board precedes the final act of notifying such list in the Official Gazette by the State under the 1995 Act (it was by the Board under the 1954 Act). As mentioned supra, the list would be prepared by the Survey Commissioner after making due enquiry and after valid survey as well as after due application of mind. The enquiry contemplated under sub-section (3) of Section 4 is not merely an informal enquiry but a formal enquiry to find out at the grass root level, as to whether the property is a wakf property or not. The enquiry contemplated under sub-section (3) of Section 4 is not merely an informal enquiry but a formal enquiry to find out at the grass root level, as to whether the property is a wakf property or not. Thereafter the Wakf Board will once again examine the list sent to it with due application of its mind and only thereafter the same will be sent to the Government for notifying the same in the Gazette. Since the list is prepared and published in the Official Gazette by following the aforementioned procedure, there is no scope for the plaintiff to get the matter reopened by generating some sort of doubt about Survey Commissioner's Report. Since the Surveyor's Report was required to be considered by the State Government as well as the Wakf Board (as the case may be), prior to finalisation of the list of properties to be published in the Official Gazette, it was not open for the High Court to conclude that the Surveyor's Report will have to be reconsidered. On the contrary, the Surveyor's Report merges with the gazette notification published under Section 5 of the Wakf Act. (x) ISSUES: 24. After noticing the provisions of the 1954 Act and the 1995 Act, we may advert to the issues which arise for consideration in these appeals. The following issues arise for consideration in these appeals: (1) Whether the enquiry report dated 07.08.1965 prepared under Section 4(4) of the 1954 Act is saved under Section 112 of the Wakf Act, 1995? (2) Whether on the basis of the enquiry report dated 07.08.1965, a notification after a period of 41 years declaring the subject land to be wakf property can be issued under Section 5(2) of the Wakf Act, 1995? (3) Whether issue with regard to validity of the notification dated 27.07.2006 issued by the Wakf Board can be examined by the Wakf Tribunal under the then Section 6 of the Wakf Act, 1995 in vogue at the relevant time? (4) Whether issue with regard to validity of the notification dated 27.07.2006 can be examined in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? (4) Whether issue with regard to validity of the notification dated 27.07.2006 can be examined in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? and (5) Whether the common Judgment dated 24.10.2005 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A.Nos.76 and 78 of 2000 operates as res judicata in respect of land measuring Acs.8.13 guntas bearing Survey Nos.113 to 120 of Karmanghat Village, Hayathnagar Taluk, Ranga Reddy District against the legal representatives of late Mohd.Miskeen, who was the erstwhile inamdar and the Wakf Board? (xi) ANALYSIS: 25. We shall now proceed to deal with the issues ad seriatim. Issue (1): Whether the enquiry report dated 07.08.1965 prepared under Section 4(4) of the 1954 Act is saved under Section 112 of the Wakf Act, 1995? 26. The making of survey under Section 4 of the Act is not a mere administrative act but it is to be informed by a quasi-judicial inquiry. The surveyor has the power to find out whether a particular is a wakf and Commissioner has to determine the aspects which have been mentioned in Section 4 of the Act (see Maharashtra State Board of Wakfs vs. Shaikh Yusuf Bhai Chawla, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1653). The effect of repeal of a statute is to destroy all inchoate rights and all causes of action which may have arisen under the provisions of repealed statute. When repeal is followed by a fresh legislation on the same subject, the Court undoubtedly has to look into the provisions of the new Act, but only for the purpose of determining whether they indicate a different intention. The line of enquiry would be, not whether the new Act expressly keeps alive old rights and liabilities, but whether it manifests an intention to destroy them (see State of Punjab vs. Mohar Singh, 1955 (1) SCR 893 : AIR 1955 SC 84 ). The aforesaid view was reiterated with approval in Gammon India Limited vs. Special Chief Secretary, (2006) 3 SCC 354 , and it was held that the issue with regard to the continuation of pending proceedings under a repealed statute depends either under the savings contained in the Repeal Act or under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act. The aforesaid view was reiterated with approval in Gammon India Limited vs. Special Chief Secretary, (2006) 3 SCC 354 , and it was held that the issue with regard to the continuation of pending proceedings under a repealed statute depends either under the savings contained in the Repeal Act or under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act. It was further held that question whether a right was acquired or a liability incurred under a statute before its repeal in each case depends on the construction of a statute and the facts of a particular case. It was also held that when there is a repeal of an enactment and simultaneous re-enactment, the re-enactment has to be considered as reaffirmation of the old law and the provisions of the repealed Act which are thus re-enacted continue in force uninterruptedly unless the re-enacted enactment manifests an intention incompatible with or contrary to the provisions of the repealed Act. The aforesaid view was again reiterated with approval in State of Haryana vs. Hindustan Construction Company Limited, (2017) 9 SCC 463 . 27. Section 112 of the 1995 Act, which deals with repeal and savings, is extracted below for the facility of reference: 112. Repeal and savings:- (1) The Wakf Act, 1954 (29 of 1954) and the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 (69 of 1984) are hereby repealed. (2) Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken under the said Acts shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this Act. (3) If, immediately before the commencement of this Act, in any State, there is in force in that State, any law which corresponds to this Act that corresponding law shall stand repealed: Provided that such repeal shall not affect the previous operation of that corresponding law, and subject thereto, anything done or any action taken in the exercise of any power conferred by or under the corresponding law shall be deemed to have been done or taken in the exercise of the powers conferred by or under this Act as if this Act was in force on the day on which such things were done or action was taken. 28. In the instant case, the repeal of an enactment, namely 1954 Act is accompanied with simultaneous reenactment namely the 1995 Act. 28. In the instant case, the repeal of an enactment, namely 1954 Act is accompanied with simultaneous reenactment namely the 1995 Act. In Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy (supra), the Supreme Court has held that the provisions of Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the 1954 Act as well as the 1995 Act are substantially similar. Therefore, the legislative intention can safely be inferred as reaffirmation of the old law. 29. It is pertinent to note that scope and effect of Section 112(2) of the 1995 Act was considered by the Supreme Court in T.Kaliamurthi v. Five Gori Thaikkal Wakf, (2008) 9 SCC 306 and it was held that Section 112 of the Act is in conformity with Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, which also provides that a repeal shall not affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired or incurred under the repealed enactment unless a contrary intention appears. Thus, under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act and Section 112 of the Wakf Act, prior operation of the repealed enactment or the legal proceedings or remedies instituted, continued or enforced are saved. 30. On perusal of Section 112(2) of the 1995 Act, the legislative intent to save anything done or any action taken under the 1954 Act is manifest. Therefore, anything done or any action taken under the 1954 Act is saved and shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of the 1995 Act. The re-enacted enactment i.e., the 1995 Act does not contain any intention incompatible with or contrary to the provisions of the Repealed Act. Therefore, the survey conducted under Section 4 of the 1954 Act is saved under Section 112(2) of the 1995 Act. Accordingly, the first issue is answered in the affirmative. Issue (2): Whether on the basis of the enquiry report dated 07.08.1965, a notification after a period of 41 years declaring the subject land to be wakf property can be issued under Section 5 of the Wakf Act, 1995? 31. Section 4(3) of the 1954 Act does not provide for a time limit within which the Commissioner after conducting the enquiry, has to submit the report to the State Government. It is equally true that Section 5 of the Act does not provide for time limit for issue of publication of list of wakfs. 31. Section 4(3) of the 1954 Act does not provide for a time limit within which the Commissioner after conducting the enquiry, has to submit the report to the State Government. It is equally true that Section 5 of the Act does not provide for time limit for issue of publication of list of wakfs. However, the Commissioner of Wakfs and the Wakf Board exercise the statutory function while preparing the enquiry report and publishing the same as list of wakfs under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act respectively. A mere survey carried under Section 4 of the 1954 Act does not extinguish the rights in a property. It is only on publication of notification under Section 5(2) of the Act, the rights of a person in a property are extinguished. Therefore, the statutory powers have to be exercised within a reasonable period as rights in a property may accrue after survey which may get extinguished on publication of the survey. 32. Even otherwise, it is trite law that where 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 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 ). 33. The Supreme Court in the State of Andhra Pradesh now the State of Telangana vs. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 159 has disapproved the action of issuing an errata notification after a lapse of 17 years from the date of first notification. 34. In the instant case, the enquiry report was prepared on 07.08.1965 whereas the notification under Section 5 of the Act dated 27.07.2006 has been issued after a period of 41 years. The notification dated 27.07.2006 extinguishes the rights of the persons in the subject property. The statutory powers have to be exercised within a reasonable time. In the instant case, the notification dated 27.07.2006 which has the effect of extinguishing the rights of individuals in the property has been issued after an inordinate delay of 41 years for which no explanation has been offered. The statutory powers have to be exercised within a reasonable time. In the instant case, the notification dated 27.07.2006 which has the effect of extinguishing the rights of individuals in the property has been issued after an inordinate delay of 41 years for which no explanation has been offered. The exercise of statutory powers after a period of 41 years without any explanation for the same cannot be said to be exercise of statutory powers within a reasonable time and therefore, the same is vitiated in law. Accordingly, the second issue is answered. Issue (3): Whether issue with regard to validity of the notification dated 27.07.2006 issued by the Wakf Board can be examined by the Wakf Tribunal under the then Section 6 of the Wakf Act, 1995 in vogue at the relevant time? 35. Before dealing with the aforesaid issue, it is apposite to take note of the statutory provision, namely Section 6 of the Wakf Act, 1995 as it stood at the time of issuance of notification dated 27.07.2006 prior to its Amendment Act No.27 of 2013 dated 01.11.2013 6. Disputes regarding Wakfs:- (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as Wakf property in the list of Wakfs is wakf property or not or whether a Wakq specified in such list is a Shia Wakf or Sunni Wakf, the Board or the Mutawalli of the Wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a Tribunal for the decision of the question and the decision of the Tribunal in respect of such matter shall be final; Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the Tribunal after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of Wakfs: Explanation:- For the purposes of this section and section 7, the expression “any person interested therein”, shall, in relation to any property specified as wakf property in the list of wakfs published after the commencement of this Act, shall include also every person who, though not interested in the wakf concerned, is interested in such property and to whom a reasonable opportunity had been afforded to represent his case by notice served on him in that behalf during the course of the relevant inquiry under Section 4. (2) Not withstanding anything contained in subsection (1), no proceeding under this Act in respect of any wakf shall be stayed by reason only of the pendency of any such suit or of any appeal or other proceeding arising out of such suit. (3) The Survey Commissioner shall not be made a party to any suit under sub-section (1) and no suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against him in respect of anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done in pursuance of this Act or any rules made thereunder. (4) The list of Wakfs shall, unless it is modified in pursuance of a decision or the Tribunal under subsection (1), be final and conclusive. (5) On and from the commencement of this Act in a State, no suit or other legal proceeding shall be instituted or commenced in a court in that State in relation to any question referred to in sub-section (1). 36. Thus, it is evident that dispute whether or not property is a wakf property in the list of wakfs and whether the same belongs to Shia or Sunni wakf, the Board or the Mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a Tribunal for adjudication of the aforesaid question. Section 6 has to be read with Section 3(k) of the Act which defines the expression ‘person interested in a wakf’ and reads as under: 3 (k) “person interested in a wakf” means any person who is entitled to receive any pecuniary or other benefit from the wakf and includes- (i) any person who has a right to workship or to perform any religious rite in a mosque, idgah, imambara, dargah, khanqah, peerkhana and karbala, maqbara, graveyard or any other religious institution connected with the wakf or to participate in any religious or charitable institution under the wakf; (ii) the wakif and any descendant of the wakf and the Mutawalli; 37. Thus, if provisions of Section 6 and 3(k) of the Wakf Act, 1995, prior to its Amendment, are read in conjunction, it is evident that the petitioners are not the persons interested in a wakf. It is pertinent to mention that at the relevant point of time when the notification was issued on 27.07.2006, the petitioners could not have availed of the remedy under Section 6. It is pertinent to mention that at the relevant point of time when the notification was issued on 27.07.2006, the petitioners could not have availed of the remedy under Section 6. However, subsequently by Amendment Act No.27 of 2013 dated 01.11.2013, the words ‘any person interested’ had been substituted by ‘any person aggrieved’. But, at the relevant time, the remedy of filing a suit before the Wakf Tribunal was not available to the petitioners. Accordingly, the third issue is answered in the negative. Issue (4): Whether issue with regard to validity of the notification dated 27.07.2006 can be examined in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? 38. A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Babubhai Muljibhai Patel vs. Nandlal Khodidas Barot, (1974) 2 SCC 706 held that the High Court is not deprived of its jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 226 merely because in considering the petitioner’s right of relief, questions of fact may fall to be determined. In a petition under Article 226, the High Court has jurisdiction to try issues both of fact and law. In paragraph 9, it was held as under: 9. On behalf of the appellant his learned counsel, Mr Amin, has at the outset contended that as the dispute between the parties in this case involved questions of fact, the High Court should not have entertained the writ petition filed by Respondent 1 but should have referred the parties to a separate suit. This contention, in our opinion, is not well founded. No plea was admittedly taken in the return filed on behalf of the appellant in reply to the writ petition that Respondent 1 should be directed to seek his remedy by means of a suit because of disputed questions of fact. In the absence of such a plea, the appellant, in our opinion, cannot be heard to say that the High Court should have relegated Respondent 1 to the remedy of a suit. Apart from that we find that the term of the appellant as the President of the municipality would have expired in 1975. The trial of a suit, in the very nature of things, would have taken considerable time. Appeal and second appeal would have also been filed by the unsuccessful party in the case. Apart from that we find that the term of the appellant as the President of the municipality would have expired in 1975. The trial of a suit, in the very nature of things, would have taken considerable time. Appeal and second appeal would have also been filed by the unsuccessful party in the case. Had Respondent 1 been directed to seek his remedy by way of a suit, the relief secured by Respondent 1 even if he had succeeded in the suit would have been wholly illusory because by the time Respondent 1 would succeed in the litigation, the term of the office of the President would have either already expired or be about to expire. The appellant in that event would have continued as the President of the municipality even though he had ceased to enjoy the confidence of the requisite number of councillors and they had passed a motion of no confidence against him. The entire concept of a democratic institution would thus have been set at naught. We agree with the observations of the High Court that the purpose underlying the petition would have been completely defeated in case Respondent 1 had been relegated to the ordinary remedy of a suit and that such remedy was neither adequate nor efficacious. 39. The power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be exercised not only for enforcement of fundamental rights but for any other purpose as well. In the State of Andhra Pradesh now the State of Telangana vs. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board (supra), the High Court had relegated the parties to an alternative remedy of filing a regular suit before the Wakf Tribunal. The Supreme Court in paragraph 116 held that the High Court erred in law to relegate the parties to the statutory remedy. Paragraph 116 reads as under: 116. We find that the High Court has examined the merits of the contention raised including the documents filed so as not to accept the contentions of the State. Though the High Court has expressed the same to be prima facie view, but in fact, nothing was left to suggest that it was not a final order as far as the State is concerned with the order of the dismissal of its writ petition. Though the High Court has expressed the same to be prima facie view, but in fact, nothing was left to suggest that it was not a final order as far as the State is concerned with the order of the dismissal of its writ petition. Even otherwise, we find that the questions raised before this Court are the interpretation of the statues, the Farmans issued by Sovereign from time to time and the interpretation of the document to the facts of the present case. It is not a case where any oral evidence would be necessary or is available now. In fact, that was not even the suggestion before this Court. Since the question was in respect of interpretation of the statutes and the documents primarily issued by the Sovereign, the matter needs to be examined on merits as detailed arguments have been addressed by learned counsel for the parties. Thus, we find that the High Court erred in law, in the facts and circumstances of the case, to relegate the parties to the statutory remedy. 40. An enquiry report as well as the notification were issued in exercise of statutory powers under Sections 4 and 5 of the Wakf Act. In the instant case, no disputed question of fact arises for consideration. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that issue with regard to the validity of the notification dated 27.07.2006 which does not depend on determination of any disputed questions of fact could have been examined by the learned Single Judge in writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the fourth issue is answered. Issue (5): Whether the common Judgment dated 24.10.2005 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A.Nos.76 and 78 of 2000 operates as res judicata in respect of land measuring Acs.8.13 guntas bearing Survey Nos.113 to 120 of Karmanghat Village, Hayathnagar Taluk, Ranga Reddy District against the legal representatives of late Mohd.Miskeen, who was the erstwhile inamdar and the Wakf Board? 41. The Award dated 25.03.1985 was passed under Section 8 of the 1952 Act. The validity of the aforesaid Award was challenged in A.S.No.1603 of 1985. 41. The Award dated 25.03.1985 was passed under Section 8 of the 1952 Act. The validity of the aforesaid Award was challenged in A.S.No.1603 of 1985. A learned Single Judge by an order dated 06.07.1999 set aside the Award passed under the 1952 Act and held that land measuring Acs.8.13 guntas bearing Survey Nos.113 to 120 of Karmanghat Village, Hayathnagar Taluk, Ranga Reddy District is a wakf property. The aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge was assailed by the legal representatives of inamdar in L.P.A.Nos.76 and 78 of 2000. It is pertinent to note that the Wakf Board was also a party in the aforesaid appeals. A Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 24.10.2005 inter alia held that the land measuring Acs.8.13 guntas bearing Survey Nos.113 to 120 of Karmanghat Village, Hayathnagar Taluk, Ranga Reddy is not a service inam land and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The relevant extract of the aforesaid order reads as under: It is thus clear that the entries in the official gazette describing the property as wakf, if allowed to become final, alone can be treated as conclusive and not the preliminary survey report submitted by the Commissioner of the wakfs. It is therefore not possible to hold the property to be a wakf by placing exclusive reliance upon Ex.A-4. The submission made in this regard is accordingly rejected. The learned Single Judge while reversing the award passed by the learned Arbitrator altogether ignored Ex.A-41 muntakhab which was relied upon by the learned Arbitrator wherein it is mentioned that the land in question is inam land. That a fair reading of the recitals of muntakab does not suggest it to be a service inam land. 42. Against the aforesaid order of the Division Bench, Special Leave Petitions, namely S.L.P. (C) CC Nos.10058 – 10062 of 2007 were filed by legal representatives of Mohd. Miskeen, inamdar. Thus, the Wakf Board did not file any Special Leave Petition against the order dated 24.10.2005 passed by a Division Bench of this Court. Thus, the Wakf Board accepted the finding recorded by the Division Bench of this Court that part of the subject land i.e., land measuring Acs.8.13 guntas bearing Survey Nos.113 to 120 of Karmanghat Village, Hayathnagar Taluk, Ranga Reddy is not service inam land. Thus, the Wakf Board accepted the finding recorded by the Division Bench of this Court that part of the subject land i.e., land measuring Acs.8.13 guntas bearing Survey Nos.113 to 120 of Karmanghat Village, Hayathnagar Taluk, Ranga Reddy is not service inam land. Even otherwise, the aforesaid order passed by the Division Bench of this Court attained finality as Special Leave Petitions preferred by the legal representatives of Mohd. Miskeen, inamdar namely S.L.P. (C) CC Nos.10058 – 10062 of 2007 were dismissed by order dated 26.10.2007 by the Supreme Court. The aforesaid order reads as under: Inordinate delay in filing these petitions has not been explained property. Application of condonation of delay is rejected. Consequently, the Special Leave Petitions are dismissed. It is also open to the petitioners to urge all the rights and contentions before the Joint Collector before whom the appeal is stated to be pending. Therefore, the common order dated 24.10.2005 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A.Nos.76 and 78 of 2000 operates as res judicata in respect of land measuring Acs.8.13 guntas bearing Survey Nos.113 to 120 of Karmanghat Village, Hayathnagar Taluk, Ranga Reddy. Accordingly, the fifth issue is answered in affirmative. 43. The issue whether or not the Award dated 25.03.1985 passed by the Arbitrator under Section 8 of the 1952 Act is a nullity or not need not be examined as the aforesaid Award was set aside by the learned Single Judge by an order dated 06.07.1999 passed in A.S.No.1603 of 1985. Even otherwise, it is pertinent to mention that the respondents have not laid any factual foundation with regard to the Award being nullity in the pleadings. The contention that since Mr. V.Neeladri Rao was Presiding Officer of the Labour Court and was incompetent to pass the Award is concerned, is misconceived. There is no material on record to show that Mr. V.Neeladri Rao was not qualified for appointment as Judge of this Court. In fact, subsequent to passing of the Award, he was indeed elevated as Judge of the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh High Court. The aforesaid contention, therefore, does not deserve acceptance. Similarly, the contention that the order dated 24.10.2005 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A.Nos.76 and 78 of 2000 is without jurisdiction is misconceived and has been made without any foundation. 44. The scope of an intra-court appeal is well defined. The aforesaid contention, therefore, does not deserve acceptance. Similarly, the contention that the order dated 24.10.2005 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A.Nos.76 and 78 of 2000 is without jurisdiction is misconceived and has been made without any foundation. 44. The scope of an intra-court appeal is well defined. This Court in appeal against an order of learned Single Judge does not act as Court of regular appeal. 45. For the reasons assigned by us in the order, we agree with the conclusions of the learned Single Judge. We, therefore, do not find any merit in these appeals. (xii) CONCLUSION: 46. The writ appeals fail and are hereby dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.