ORDER : T. Vinod Kumar, J. Since, both the writ petitions are integrally connected and the petitioners are one and the same, are being disposed of by this Common Order. 2. W.P No.18633 of 2021, is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order of the Special Tribunal dated 11.07.2021, with the following prayer viz., For the reasons mentioned above, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for records in Case No. F2/Spl Tribunal/0253/2021, before the Respondent No.2 i.e. Court of Special Tribunal, Nalgonda (Old Case No.F2/231/2019, before the Old Revenue Court, Additional Collector) and to quash the Order of the Respondent No.2 i.e. Court of Special Tribunal, Nalgonda, dated 11.07.2021 in Case No. F2/Spl Tribunal/0253/2021 (Old Case No.F2/231/2019, whereby the Court of Special Tribunal in utter violation of the Order passed by this Hon'ble High Court in W.P. No. 6840 of 2021, dated 16.04.2021, restored its earlier Order dated 15.02.2021, though the same was set aside by this Hon'ble High Court as being without jurisdiction, illegal, arbitrary and untenable in law apart from being voilative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently restore the Order of Revenue Divisional Officer, Nalgonda in case No.B/4062/2018, dated01.09.2018 and pass such other Order or Orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 3. W.P No.21210 of 2021 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the Gazette Notification dated 22.02.1990, with the following prayer viz., For the reasons mentioned above, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the Andhra Pradesh Gazette bearing No. 8-A, Part 2, dated 22.02.1990 at Serial No.14505 and Page No.248 in respect of Survey No. 35 admeasuring Acres 1-22 Guntas equivalent to 7000 Sq. Yards situated in Nalgonda Town, Mandal and District as null and void on account of being issued in violation of the provisions of Waqf Act, 1995, being without jurisdiction, illegal, arbitrary and untenable in law apart from being voilative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and also the principles of natural justice and consequently to setaside the same along with all the actions taken in furtherance thereof and pass such other Order or Orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. 4. The petitioners in Writ Petition No.18633 of 2021 are aggrieved by the order dated 11.07.2021, passed by the 2 nd respondent herein, which it is contended has been passed in violation of the order of this Court dated 16.04.2021 in W.P. No.6840 of 2021. 5. The petitioners in Writ Petition No.21210 of 2021 are aggrieved by the action of 1 st respondent in issuing the Gazette Notification dated 22.02.1990 in respect of the land in Sy No.35 admeasuring Ac.1-22 gts situated in Nalgonda town, as waqf land under the Waqf Act 1954 (for short ‘the Act’). I. Case of the Petitioners: 6. It is contended by the petitioners that, originally the land in Sy No.35 admeasuring Ac.1-22 gts, situated at Nalgonda originally belongs to Bismillah Khan Saab and after the death of Bismillah Khan Saab, his daughter Zainab Bee succeeded to the estate of Bismillah Khan Saab being his sole legal heir, who vide registered sale deed dated 14.12.1961 sold the land in Sy No. 35 admeasuring Ac.1-22 gts to the father of petitioner No. 1 herein i.e. late V. Bhasker Rama Rao, who in turn by virtue of the said sale deed became the absolute owner and possessor of the subject property. 7. It is contended that, after purchase of the subject property, the father of the petitioner No.1 after obtaining all necessary permissions from the concerned authorities had constructed a Cinema Hall in the year 1964 and was running the same under the name and style of "Bhaskar Talkies". 8. 7. It is contended that, after purchase of the subject property, the father of the petitioner No.1 after obtaining all necessary permissions from the concerned authorities had constructed a Cinema Hall in the year 1964 and was running the same under the name and style of "Bhaskar Talkies". 8. Petitioners contend that, the erstwhile A.P. Waqf Board had filed the suit vide O.S. No. 17 of 1971 against Sri V. Bhaskar Rama Rao, and the same was dismissed for default on 05.02.1972; that the A.P. Waqf Board did not file any petitions to restore the said suits to its original number and suppressing the fact of dismissal of suit filed by it, the respondent Waqf board filed another suit vide O.S. No.33 of 1971 and the same was also dismissed and no appeal was also preferred there against, and the order passed therein has attained finality. 9. It is contended that, Late Sri Bhaskara Rama Rao, being in possession of the land admeasuring Ac.1-22 gts and having constructed a cinema hall therein by obtaining permission from the District Collector, had settled the open land admeasuring 2000 Sq. yds in favour of his two sons namely and Venepalli Prasad Rao petitioner No.1 herein and Venepalli Ramchander Rao the husband of petitioner No.2 vide registered Settlement Deed dated 16.06.1976 on the file of the Joint Sub-Registrar, Nalgonda. Subsequently, Venepalli Ramchander Rao and petitioner No.1 herein had constructed a Cinema Hall in the said extent under the name and style of "Sri Lakshmi Talkies" by obtaining all necessary permissions from the concerned authorities which are renewed from time to time. 10. It is further contention of the petitioner No.1, that his father during his life time had constructed several mulgies in the area of 3000 Sq. yds out of the subject property towards northern and western side of the land adjoining the main roads i.e., Deverakonda Road and Miryalaguda Road by obtaining necessary permission from the concerned authorities, which were also subjected to property tax by the municipal authorities. 11. Petitioners contend that, since both Cinema Halls i.e., Bhaskar Talkies and Lakshmi Talkies which were running up to the year 2010 had become old, the petitioners in consonance with the Government Policy under G.O.Ms.No.486 MA & UD Department wanted to construct a Multiplex therein, had made an application to respondent No.3 and simultaneously dismantled the existing two theatres. 12. 11. Petitioners contend that, since both Cinema Halls i.e., Bhaskar Talkies and Lakshmi Talkies which were running up to the year 2010 had become old, the petitioners in consonance with the Government Policy under G.O.Ms.No.486 MA & UD Department wanted to construct a Multiplex therein, had made an application to respondent No.3 and simultaneously dismantled the existing two theatres. 12. Petitioners contend that, on they making the above application, the 3 rd respondent had issued letters to various concerned departments/authorities and all the concerned departments/authorities issued no objection, for granting permission, and as such the Revenue Divisional Officer was pleased to issue proceedings dated 10.02.2011 by recommending permission for construction of a Multiplex in the subject property. 13. It is contended that, while the things stood thus, a proforma Show Cause Notice dated Nil.10.2004 was issued by the A.P State Waqf Board in the name of the father and brother of the petitioner No.1 (late V. Bhasker Rama Rao and late V. Ramchander Rao the husband of the 2 nd petitioner), which was served on 29.03.2005, claiming that the noticee have encroached into the land to an extent of Ac.1-22 gts forming part of Gazette dated 22.02.1990 belonging to Waqf institution and called upon the noticee to submit explanation within 15 days as to why an order to remove the encroachment should not be made under Section 54 (3) of the Act; and that they filed a detailed reply to the same on 31.05.2005. 14. Petitioners contend that, the respondent No.7 did not afford any opportunity of personal hearing and though alleged to have passed eviction order on 21.10.2005 under Section 54 (3) the said order was never served on the father and brother of the petitioner No. 1. Further, under such proceedings initiated under Section 54 of the Waqf Act, 1995 (for short ‘the Act’) the respondent No.7 could not have declared its own title and ordered summary eviction of the petitioners, who had bonafidely purchased the subject property in the year 1961 that is prior to the alleged summary proceedings and had converted the nature of property from agricultural to non-agricultural purposes more than 60 years ago and is in settled possession. 15. 15. Petitioners further contend that, the Chief Executive Officer of the respondent No.7 after more than 5 years of passing the alleged order under Section 54 (3) of the Act and only after the petitioners have demolished the existing theatres, has forwarded the orders vide proceedings dated 22.08.2011 to the Revenue Divisional Officer and Sub Divisional Magistrate. 16. It is also contended that, based on the purported communication the Revenue Divisional Officer and Sub Divisional Magistrate issued proceedings dated 25.08.2011 directing the father of petitioner No. 1 herein and 55 others to vacate from land in Sy Nos.34, 35 and 119 of Nalgonda. The father of petitioner No.1 immediately gave a representation dated 29.08.2011 to the Revenue Divisional Officer and Sub-divisional Magistrate seeking to recall the eviction Order dated 25.08.2011, which was not considered and also did not afford an opportunity of personal hearing. Further it is also contended that, the Joint Collector, Nalgonda, in case No. B1/21125/97 in relation to the same Gazette gave a finding that the lands therein does not belong to the Waqf Board and declared as private patta lands. 17. Being aggrieved by the inaction of Revenue Divisional Officer and Sub Divisional Magistrate, the father and brother of the petitioner No.1 herein (late V. Bhasker Rama Rao and late V. Ramchander Rao) filed W.P.No.25260 of 2011, challenging the proceedings dated 25.08.2011, whereby, the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 17.09.2017, was pleased to set-aside the impugned proceedings therein and directed the authorities to call for explanation and give an opportunity to submit their arguments along with relevant documents. 18. Petitioners also contend that in pursuance of the order of the Hon’ble High Court, the Revenue Divisional Officer by order dated 01.09.2018 passed a reasoned order holding that the subject property is not a registered/notified Waqf Property; and that prima facie there is a clear flow of title infavour of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the said order, the Waqf Board filed revision before the Additional Collector and in said Revision; the petitioners herein filed a Counter disputing the very maintainability of the said Revision. 19. Aggrieved by the said order, the Waqf Board filed revision before the Additional Collector and in said Revision; the petitioners herein filed a Counter disputing the very maintainability of the said Revision. 19. Petitioners contend that, as the Additional Collector was not deciding the appeal and also not passing final orders, the petitioners herein had filed W.P No. 26158 of 2019 seeking an expeditious disposal of the Appeal, and this Court has disposed the said writ petition vide order dated 12.03.2020, directing the Additional Collector to dispose of the case within four months from the date of the order. However, after nine months, the petitioners were informed by an endorsement dated 04.12.2020 that the case before Additional Collector was transferred to the Special Tribunal, Nalgonda. 20. Petitioners contend that, as most of the Special Tribunals were passing orders in utter violation of principles of natural justice a Public Interest Litigation vide W.P. (PIL) No.20 of 2021 was filed wherein this Court vide its order dated 02.03.2021 has issued directions to the Tribunals to afford to the parties an opportunity of personal hearing. 21. Notwithstanding the pendency of W.P (PIL) No. 20 of 2021, the Tribunal passed an order in the petitioners matter by ‘ante dating’ the said order as allegedly having passed on 15.02.2021, without affording any opportunity of personal hearing and without considering any of the contentions raised in the pleadings and written arguments of the petitioners and held that RDO passed orders by expressing his opinion on the title of the property by exceeding the jurisdiction. Aggrieved by the said order the father of petitioner No.1 and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 herein preferred Writ Petition vide W.P. 6840 of 2021, wherein this Court by order dated 16.04.2021 was pleased to set aside the order passed by the respondent No.2 as under: “4. Having regard to the same, the order passed by the Special Tribunal, dated 15.02.2021, is set aside. The Special Tribunal is directed to issue notice to the parties before the Special Tribunal by fixing a date of hearing. The parties shall appear on the date fixed by the Special Tribunal and after hearing the parties, the Special Tribunal shall pass appropriate orders by assigning due reasons in support of the decision. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt 2 of copy of this order. The parties shall appear on the date fixed by the Special Tribunal and after hearing the parties, the Special Tribunal shall pass appropriate orders by assigning due reasons in support of the decision. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt 2 of copy of this order. It is open to the parties to raise all pleas as available in law before the Special Tribunal.” 22. It is contended by the petitioners that, during the pendency of the writ petition vide W.P No. 6840 of 2021, and having regard to the order passed by this Court in W.P (PIL) No. 20 of 2021, the petitioners filed review petition on 06.04.2021 before the Tribunal seeking for review of the order dated 15.02.2021. 23. In the meantime, this Court by its order dated 16.04.2021 in W.P No. 6840 of 2021 was pleased to set aside the order dated 15.02.2021. It is further contended that despite the specific direction by this Court to decide the case afresh, the respondent No.2 in contravention of the order passed in W.P. No. 6840 of 2021, has taken up the review petition filed on 06.04.2021 and passed order dated 11.07.2021 confirming its earlier order dated 15.02.2021 which no longer existed on account of being set aside by the Court in W.P.No.6840 of 2021 vide order dated 16.04.2021. 24. The petitioners herein challenged the impugned order dated 11.07.2021 on the following grounds: a. The impugned order is not sustainable as the case was heard as a review and passed an order confirming its earlier order which no longer existed on the account of being set aside by this Court vide its Orders dated 16.04.2021 in W.P. No. 6840 2021. b. The impugned order cannot be sustained as the respondent No.2 completely flouted the liberty given to the petitioners to raise all pleas before the Special Tribunal. c. The impugned Order resulted from a Revision Petition, under Section 9 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Patteder Pass Book Act, 1971 is not maintainable for the following reasons: i. The proceedings were issued under Section 54 (3) of the Waqf Act, 1995, thus, it is not a proceeding under the ROR ACT , 1971, as such an appeal against an order passed under Waqf Act cannot be challenged under the ROR ACT , 1971. ii. ii. The ROR ACT , 1971 applies to agricultural land and does not include non-agricultural land. Admittedly the subject property was being used for non-agricultural purposes for the past 60 years. Therefore, the provisions of ROR ACT , 1971 do not apply to the subject property. iii. Under Section 9 of ROR ACT , 1971 only the orders Passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer or the Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 3, 5 5A or 5B in respect of any record of rights prepared or maintained by Mandal Revenue Officer or the Revenue Divisional Officer can be challenged. However, since the order passed under the Waqf Act does not fall under any one of the categories the revisional powers under Section 9 of the ROR ACT , 1971 cannot be exercised. d. The A.P. State Waqf Board had initiated the proceedings under Section 54 of the Waqf Act 1995 by suppressing the fact that it had filed suits before Civil Court vide O.S. No. 17 of 1971 and O.S. No. 33 OF 1971,both of which were dismissed. e. Once a Civil Suit for recovery of possession is dismissed, a summary remedy cannot be invoked to circumvent the dismissal Order passed by the Civil Court and disturb the long-standing possession of 60 years of the petitioners. f. The alleged Gazette under Section 54 proceedings were initiated is void ab initio as no notice was given to the petitioners during the course of the Section 54 proceedings which were conducted. g. The present Revision has been filed against the Order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer and Sub-Divisional Magistrate in proceedings dated 01.09.2018. When the matter was remanded back the very provision, under which the Order was passed i.e. Section 54 stood amended. As per the amendment, the CEO no longer had the power to pass an order for removing alleged encroachments. h. The Revision Petitioner after failing before the Civil Courts on two occasions and after having kept quite for more than 50 years cannot out of thin air invoke a summary remedy to take possession of the subject property belonging to the petitioners on which count the Revision fails and is liable to be dismissed. 25. In W.P No.21210 of 2021 the petitioners contend that, as per Section 4 of the Act, the survey commissioner has to conduct an enquiry by giving notice to all the interested persons. 25. In W.P No.21210 of 2021 the petitioners contend that, as per Section 4 of the Act, the survey commissioner has to conduct an enquiry by giving notice to all the interested persons. However, in the present case, no such notices were issued to the petitioners or to the 1 st petitioner’s father who had purchased the subject land in the year 1961 under registered document and is in possession and enjoyment thereof having constructed a cinema hall therein. As per Section 5(2) of the Act, the Waqf Board is obligated to examine and verify the correctness of the report but no such examination/verification has been done to make publication of Waqf in the official Gazette. Therefore, the impugned Gazette Notification is liable to be set aside on the ground of procedural irregularities and in violation of principles of natural justice. 26. Petitioners contend that, the impugned Gazette which is based on the alleged Survey Report is vitiated by the fact that as on the date of conducting the alleged Survey by the surveyor on 01.07.1971 under Section 4 (3), the entire revenue record was in favour of the petitioners. Thus, the alleged Survey report recording that there are no occupants and that the land is vacant, is without any basis contrary to record and is a paper survey which was done without any actual survey being done on the land. Further, the alleged Survey is also contrary to the pleadings in the Civil Suit filed by the Waqf Board wherein the Waqf Board admitted the possession of the petitioners/their ancestors. 27. It is also contended that, under Sub-section (8) of Section 25 in case of Waqfs created before the commencement of the Act, every application for registration shall be made, within three months from such commencement and in the case of Waqfs created after such commencement the application shall be made within three months from the date of creation of the Waqf. However, in the present case no reason is assigned as to why the alleged Waqf property was not registered since 1950 till 1990. Therefore, the impugned Gazette is clearly an afterthought and is liable to be set aside. 28. It is further contended that, there is absolutely no documentary proof on record to show that there was a dedication/Waqf. However, in the present case no reason is assigned as to why the alleged Waqf property was not registered since 1950 till 1990. Therefore, the impugned Gazette is clearly an afterthought and is liable to be set aside. 28. It is further contended that, there is absolutely no documentary proof on record to show that there was a dedication/Waqf. Further, the impugned Gazette is contrary to the registered sale deed executed 29 years back thereby attracting the presumption of genuinity. 29. The petitioners in support of their case have placed reliance on the following decisions: i. Union of India vs K.M Shankarappa , (2001) 1 SCC 582 ii. U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi , 1995 (2) SCC 326 iii. Govt. of A.P. v. Thummala Krishna Rao , 1982 (2) SCC 134 iv. Adapapa Venkata Reddy v. Revenue Divisional Officer and SubDivisional Magistrate, Gudur, (2004) 3 ALD 105 v. Managing Committee Masjid-e-Ibrahimia v. Hyderabad Allwyn , (2006) 2 AP LJ 376 vi. S.P Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs vs Jagannath (Dead) by LRs and Others, (1994) 1 SCC 1 vii. Ram Preeti Yadav vs U.P Board of High School and Intermediate education and Ors. , (2003) 8 SCC 311 viii. Lachhman Das vs Jagat Ram and Ors. , (2007) 10 SCC 448 ix. State of Andhra Pradesh vs A.P State Waqf Board and Ors. , 2022 SCC OnLine SC 159 x. Gosula Ramulu, and others v. A.P. Waqf Board, rep. by its Secretary, Nampally, Hyderabad and others , (2017) 3 ALT 349 xi. Board of Muslim Waqfs v. Radha Kishan , (1979) 2 SCC 468 xii. Prem Singh v. Birbal , (2006) 5 SCC 353 xiii. Ramti Devi v. Union of India , (1995) 1 SCC 198 xiv. Ahmedsaheb v. Sayed Ismail , (2012) 8 SCC 516 xv. Telangana State Waqf Board vs. L. Srinivasa Reddy , 2022 (4) ALD 118 xvi. Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar (Dead) through LR vs Arthur Import and Export Company and Ors., (2019) 3 SCC 191 xvii. Union of India v. H.K. Dhruv , (2005) 10 SCC 218 xviii. Suzuki Parasrampuria Suitings (P) Ltd. v. Official Liquidator, (2018) 10 SCC 707 xix. D Prabhakar Rao & Ors vs AP State Waqf Board WP No.21515 of 2013 dated 22.07.2013 xx. Order in WP No. 27668 of 2011 dated 10.08.2022 II. Case of the Respondents: 30. Union of India v. H.K. Dhruv , (2005) 10 SCC 218 xviii. Suzuki Parasrampuria Suitings (P) Ltd. v. Official Liquidator, (2018) 10 SCC 707 xix. D Prabhakar Rao & Ors vs AP State Waqf Board WP No.21515 of 2013 dated 22.07.2013 xx. Order in WP No. 27668 of 2011 dated 10.08.2022 II. Case of the Respondents: 30. It is contended that in W.P No.18633 of 2021 that, the lands bearing Sy. Nos.34, 35 & 119 total admeasuring Ac 6-24gts situated at Nalgonda village are Waqf properties classified as Mashroot-ul-Khidmat Inam (Service Inam lands) attached to the Waqf institution namely Ashoorkhana Bade Naal Sahab admeasuring 221 Sq. Yds, which lands has been notified and published in the A.P. Gazette No.8-A Supplement to Part-II, dated 22.02.1990 at Page No.248 with Sl.No.14505. 31. Respondents contend that, before publication of the alleged notification, the said Waqf lands were surveyed by following the procedure by issuing notices to all the concerned, by making public pronouncements, in presence of the then Girdawar (Revenue Inspector), Patwari of the village and others. 32. Further the respondents contend that they submitted the required information in Survey Form with SI.No.223, which was in turn published in A.P. Gazette dated 22.02.1990, wherein it bears the signatures of 1) Sri T. Pratap Reddy Sab (the then Girdawar) 2) Mohd. Ibrahim Sahab Patwari 3) Khaja Azeezuddin Sab (the then Girdawar) 4) Mohd. Abdul Razzak Sahab Tajir (Businessman) 5) Choudry Mohd. Mubarak Ali Khan Sahab Head Master Rahmat-e-Alam School 6) Mohd Abdul Gafoor Saheb Tajir (Businessman) Nalgonda. 33. Respondents contend that, the Muthawalli’s i.e. 1) Abdul Razzak Khan 2) Zainab Bee are not supposed to alienate / sell / mortgage etc., of the said Waqf lands without prior permission of the Waqf Board, and any transaction made by the Muthawalli /Muthawallies without prior permission of the waqf board is null and void, void ab-initio as per Section 51 of the Act. It is also contended that, on receipt of information of encroachments by the unauthorized persons, the Waqf Board served show-cause notices to 56 encroachers individually under Section 54 (1) of the Act calling for explanation as to why they should not be evicted from the Waqf land. 34. It is also contended that, on receipt of information of encroachments by the unauthorized persons, the Waqf Board served show-cause notices to 56 encroachers individually under Section 54 (1) of the Act calling for explanation as to why they should not be evicted from the Waqf land. 34. Respondents further contend that, in response to the said notices the encroachers including the petitioners in W.P. No. 25260 of 2011 have filed their explanation before the then Chief Executive Officer, APSWB, which were examined and found as not convincing, accordingly order dated 21.10.2005 was passed under section 54(3) of the Act for eviction of the encroachers. 35. Further, the respondents contend that, in spite of issuing notices dated NIL.10.2024 and orders dated 21.10.2005, the encroachers had failed to hand over the vacant possession and they also did not choose to file appeal before the Waqf Tribunal, as such the said order dated 21.10.2005 has attained finality. Subsequently, the matter was referred to the R.D.O. Nalgonda under section 55 of the Act vide order dated 23.12.2010 for execution of the order dated 21.10.2005, with a request to evict the unauthorized persons from the waqf lands and to deliver possession of the Waqf property. It is contended that on the, RDO issuing proceedings dated 25.08.2011 to all the 56 encroachers with a direction to vacate the encroacher, the Tahsildar Nalgonda has evicted the encroachers and submitted report to the Waqf Board. 36. Respondents further contend that, on receipt of the order dated 07.09.2017 in W.P. No. 25260 of 2011, this respondent filed detailed written arguments dated 21.08.2018 for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) under section 4 of the Telangana Area Abolition of Inams Act 1955 in favour of the Waqf institution. 37. 36. Respondents further contend that, on receipt of the order dated 07.09.2017 in W.P. No. 25260 of 2011, this respondent filed detailed written arguments dated 21.08.2018 for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) under section 4 of the Telangana Area Abolition of Inams Act 1955 in favour of the Waqf institution. 37. It is contended by the respondents that, the respondent No.5 passed a biased order dated 01.09.2018, avoiding to examine the written arguments filed along with application in Form-l for grant of ORC in respect of the said Waqf property; that the said order was not the order purported to have been passed under Section 55 of the Act, as it is mainly discussed on the aspect of land purchased by the petitioner from Smt. Zainab Bee vide sale deed dated 14.12.1961 and alleged permission for construction of Cinema theatre on the said Waqf land, as such the respondents filed a Revision was filed before the Joint Collector Nalgonda District, by questioning the erroneous order passed by respondent No.5 vide order dated 01.09.2018. 38. It is further contended that, the order of the respondent No.5 dated 01.09.2018 was not an order under Section 55 of the Act, and is beyond the jurisdiction, as the respondent No.5 had wrongly dealt the issue of Title of the Waqf property with reference to the documents of purchase, which are relating to ROR, whereas it was not the subject matter before the respondent No.5 in the said proceedings. Thus, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief as they have alternate remedy by approaching the Waqf Tribunal to deal all the Waqf matter under Section 83 of the Act. 39. On behalf of the respondents, it is contended that, the Registered Sale Deed dated 14.12.1961 executed by one of the Muthawallies namely Smt. Zainab Bee is liable to be cancelled under Section 51 of the Act and Section 22-A(c) (i) of the REGISTRATION ACT 1908, read with Rule 243 of the REGISTRATION RULES , as the Muthawalli being a care taker has no right and title to alienate the Waqf property. 40. 40. It is contended that, the petitioners herein have filed W.P.No.26158 of 2019 seeking direction to the Joint Collector to pass final order, wherein the Court disposed off the said writ petition with a direction to the 3 rd respondent i.e. Joint Collector to dispose of revision within four months, and later due to charge of jurisdiction the case was transferred from Joint Collector to the Special Tribunal Nalgonda District, wherein the Special Tribunal after conducting detailed enquiry observed that "The RDO Nalgonda instead of submission of claims received from the parties to the CEO Waqf Board, the RDO passed orders by expressing his opinion on the title of property by acting in excess of jurisdiction", and allowed the Revision. 41. It is contended that, the Special Tribunal has set aside the order of the respondent No.5 dated 25.08.2011 with a direction to record the property in the name of Waqf Board, since the inception of record. However, the respondent No.5 did not comply with the orders of the Special Tribunal dated 15.02.2021. Further, the petitioners herein filed writ petition vide WP.No.6840 of 2021 seeking to set aside the orders dated 15.02.2021 of the Special Tribunal, wherein this Court while disposing off the said writ petition, by order dated 16.04.2021, directed the Tribunal to issue notice to the parties and to pass appropriate orders by assigning reasons. 42. It is also contended that, the petitioners filed a Review petition before the Special Tribunal Nalgonda with a prayer to review the orders dated 15.02.2021, accordingly, it was taken upon 11.07.2021 and passed order observing that the subject lands are notified Waqf property published in A.P. Gazette No. 8-A part-II dated 22.02.1990 as such it continues to be Waqf properties. Further, the Special Tribunal further observed that the respondent No.5 passed orders by expressing his opinion on the title of the property by exceeding his jurisdiction, but no additional evidence produced by the Review petitioners to review the earlier orders. Thus, the Special Tribunal found no reasons to review the earlier orders dated 15.02.2021 and dismissed the Review petition. 43. Respondents contend that, aggrieved with the said orders dated 11.07.2021 the petitioners filed the present Writ Petition with a malafide intention to grab the valuable prime Waqf lands. Thus, the Special Tribunal found no reasons to review the earlier orders dated 15.02.2021 and dismissed the Review petition. 43. Respondents contend that, aggrieved with the said orders dated 11.07.2021 the petitioners filed the present Writ Petition with a malafide intention to grab the valuable prime Waqf lands. Further, the allegation that the order dated 11.07.2021 did not consider the order in WP.No.6840 of 2021 dated 16.04.2021 is a matter of record but it does not affect the character and nature of the land in question being the Waqf property. 44. Respondents also contend that, the provisions under Section 5(3) of the Act cast a duty on the revenue authorities to include the list of Auqaaf i.e., the Waqf properties notified in the Gazette, while updating and mutating the land records. Thus, as per the order dated 15.02.2021 directing the respondent No.5, to record the property in the name of Waqf Board since the inception of records is absolutely correct and within the frame work of the Act and Rules. 45. In so far as W.P No.21210 of 2021, on behalf of respondents it is contended that, the subject waqf institution i.e. Ashoorkhana Badenaal Saheb and Dargah Asifullah Shah Qadri along with its attached property agricultural lands in SyNos.119,34 and 35 admeasuring Ac 6-20 gts situated at Nalgonda are classified as Mashroot-ul-Khidmatinam (service Inam lands), registered and notified waqf property published under the AP Gazette dated 22.02.1990 at Serial Number 14505 and Page No. 248 under the Mutawalli-ship of Abdul Razak Khan s/o Majeed Khan (Mujawar), 2) Zaiab Bee w/o Mohammed Qumaruddin who are the caretakers (supervisors) of the institution and waqf properties only. 46. Further, the respondents contend that, the writ petitioners could approach the Waqf Tribunal by questioning the said Gazette instead of approaching this Court for adjudication of the dispute and the ownership claimed by the petitioners in waqf property basing on the alleged sale document which is not readable properly as it neither bears proper registration number, nor extent / area of the land nor boundaries and as such cannot be considered as genuine in the eyes of law. Therefore, the order dated 27.08.2011 passed by the respondent No. 5 delivering possession of the subject waqf property has become final and binding on the petitioners. 47. Therefore, the order dated 27.08.2011 passed by the respondent No. 5 delivering possession of the subject waqf property has become final and binding on the petitioners. 47. It is contended that the subject property is the waqf property and for that reason the petitioners are not allowed to construct or carry on any business by obtaining licenses/permissions / no objections from any authority except prior permission of the Waqf Board. It is further contended the petitioners have influenced and manipulated the entire records including certificates from the Revenue, Municipality and other departments in obtaining permissions/licenses etc. 48. Respondents contend that the notice under section 54(1) of the Act dated 29.10.2004 was served on the father and brother of the Writ Petitioner No. 1 i.e. late V. Bhasker Rama Rao and late V. Ramchander Rao, but they submitted vague reply vide letter dated 31.05.2005 which is neither convincing nor acceptable. 49. Further, the ownership claimed by the petitioner on the basis of an unreadable Urdu sale document dated 14.12.1961 is submitted prior to the gazette notification wherein the subject land was continuously recorded as Service Inam Land of subject institution in revenue records, which itself shows that the entire Sy No. 35 is Waqf since immemorial. 50. The respondents in support of their case have placed reliance on the following decisions: i. D Venkata Krishna Rao and Ors vs Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors , 2012 SCC OnLine AP 704 ii. Pilli Anjaneyulu Yadav vs Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors , 2012 SCC OnLine AP 705 iii. Mir Qamar Hasan Razvi vs AP State Waqf Board, Hyderabad , 2011 SCC OnLine AP 323 iv. Board of Waqf, West Bengal and Anr vs Anis Fatma Begum and Anr , (2010) 14 SCC 588 ] v. Sayyed Ali and Ors vs AP Waqf Board, Hyderabad and Ors , (1998) 2 SCC 642 51. Heard Sri Zeeshan Adnan Mahmood, learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1,3 to 6, learned Government Pleader for Minority Welfare appearing for respondent No.2 and Sri Ashutosh Joshi, learned Standing counsel for the respondent No.7 and perused the record. III. Contentions of the Petitioner: 52. Heard Sri Zeeshan Adnan Mahmood, learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1,3 to 6, learned Government Pleader for Minority Welfare appearing for respondent No.2 and Sri Ashutosh Joshi, learned Standing counsel for the respondent No.7 and perused the record. III. Contentions of the Petitioner: 52. Learned Counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the writ averments had submitted that, the Special Tribunal has no power to review its own order dated 15.02.2021 more so when the said order has been set aside by this Court by virtue of the order dated 16.04.2021 in W.P No. 6840 of 2021. 53. It is further submitted that, it is evident from the order dated 16.04.2021 that this Court had issued six directions were not complied by the Special Tribunal, and by virtue of the executive action, the respondent authorities cannot overturn a judicial verdict. 54. It is further submitted that, the survey of waqf which was allegedly concluded in the year 1971 under section 4(3) of the Act cannot be published under section 5(2) of the Act after 20 years which is violation of principles of natural justice and provisions of the Waqf Act 1954. 55. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioners that, the Special Tribunal could not have exercised jurisdiction under the Waqf Act since it is vested only with jurisdiction under Section 9 of ROR ACT , 1971 which gives the Special Tribunal jurisdiction in respect of the orders Passed under ROR 1971 by the Mandal Revenue Officer or the Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 3, 5 5A or 5B in respect of any record of rights prepared or maintained by Mandal Revenue Officer or the Revenue Divisional Officer. IV. Contentions of the Respondents: 56. Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that, the appeal filed before the Special Tribunal is in accordance with the law, as Collector has power to sit in revision over any Order passed by the RDO. Further, the respondent No.5 has no authority to decide title and went beyond the jurisdiction conferred on it. 57. IV. Contentions of the Respondents: 56. Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that, the appeal filed before the Special Tribunal is in accordance with the law, as Collector has power to sit in revision over any Order passed by the RDO. Further, the respondent No.5 has no authority to decide title and went beyond the jurisdiction conferred on it. 57. Learned Counsel for the respondents also submit that, the Order passed by the respondent No.5 cannot be sustained, as it cannot be presumed that this Court in W.P No. 25260 of 2011 having directed to examine the rights of the parties, since, the provision under Section 55 of the Act only deal with execution. 58. Further, it is submitted that even though respondent No.7 under Section 54 (3) the Order was tried to be serve the order dated 21.10.2005 passed under Section 54 (3) of the Act through MRO, as the same was refused by the petitioners, the said order has attained finality and the consequential proceeding under Section 55 of the Act cannot stand scrutiny by this Court. 59. Learned counsel submitted that the subject property is Inam land for that reason it vests with the State, and Zainab Bee who is the predecessor in title of the petitioners herein was not competent to execute the sale deed. Further it is submitted that the sale deed is illegal as permission from the Waqf Board under Section 51 of the Act, was not obtained by the petitioners. 60. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that, the petitioners herein became aware of the Gazette notification in the year 2011 as such filing the present Writ Petition in 2020 is belated effort. Further, the petitioners have not challenged the Gazette Notification within one year from the date of publication of the same, as specified under Section 6 of the Waqf Act. Therefore, they are prohibited from challenging the Gazette at this stage. 61. It is further submitted that, as per the notification issued it is not necessary to make a claim by the Board in respect of Waqf Property for the reason that even if Gazette Notification is set aside the property still remains as the waqf property by applying the principle of ‘once a waqf, always a waqf’. 61. It is further submitted that, as per the notification issued it is not necessary to make a claim by the Board in respect of Waqf Property for the reason that even if Gazette Notification is set aside the property still remains as the waqf property by applying the principle of ‘once a waqf, always a waqf’. Further, as per the present petition the disputed questions of fact cannot be gone into under Article 226 of the Constitution of India thus, alternative remedy is available to the petitioners herein under Section 83 of the Act. Thus, the present W.P is not maintainable. V. Considerations of this Court: A. Issue in respect of the Tribunal’s power to review its own order: 62. It is to be noted that, the Special Tribunal has no power to review its own order dated 15.02.2021 more so when the very same order has been set aside by this Court vide order dated 16.04.2021 in W.P No. 6840 of 2021. In the present case, the Special Tribunal cannot by any stretch of imagination sit in appeal over the decision of this Court. The same also amounts to impropriety and if taken at face value amount to gross and willful contempt. 63. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.M. Shankarappa (Supra) has held as under: 7…..Thus, Section 6 (1) is a travesty of the rule of law which is one of the basic structures of the Constitution. The legislature may, in certain cases, overrule or nullify a judicial or executive decision by enacting an appropriate legislation. However, without enacting an appropriate legislation, the executive or the legislature cannot set at naught a judicial order. 64. Further, the Special Tribunal is vested with jurisdiction under Section 9 of ROR ACT 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1971 Act’) in respect of orders passed under the 1971 Act by the RDO under Section 3, 5, 5A and 5B in respect of any record of rights prepared or maintained by MRO or RDO and cannot assume jurisdiction beyond what is prescribed under the Act. 65. 65. Further, on repealing of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act 1971 and in its place New ROR ACT 2020 coming into force, it is only the pending appeals and revisions that would get transferred to Special Tribunal and does not confer jurisdiction over new matters unless until the statue/enactment under which the Special Tribunal is conferred with such jurisdiction. Thus, order of the respondent No.5 dealing with the claim of the petitioners viz-a-viz., the claim of the respondent No.7 could not have been considered as a dispute arising under the ROR ACT 1971 for the Special Tribunal to assume jurisdiction. Though the petitioners has raised the specific plea in this regard before the Special Tribunal there is no whisper in the order of the Special Tribunal on this aspect. This itself makes the order of the Special Tribunal vitiated, including Special Tribunal order dated 15.02.2021 which was set aside by this Court in W.P. No. 6840 of 2021. 66. Further, the order of the Special Tribunal can be reviewed only if it is vested with the power of review by express provision or by necessary implication and it cannot review unless such power is expressly conferred on it by the statute. Moreover, once the Tribunal has issued its order and become functus officio, it cannot reopen or review the matter, thereby ensuring finality and certainty in its decisions (See: Kuntesh Gupta v. Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya , (1987) 4 SCC 525 and SBI v. S.N. Goyal , (2008) 8 SCC 92 ) 67. It is trite law that, at the appeal is a creature of the statute and the right to appeal inheres in no one. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction by the Special Tribunal is per se illegal and cannot be countenanced. 68. The Apex Court in U.P. Awas Evam Vikas (Supra) has held as under: 39. …..A right of appeal is conferred by statute or equivalent legislative authority; it is not a mere matter of practice or procedure, and neither the superior nor the inferior court or Tribunal nor both combined can create or take away such a right 69. 68. The Apex Court in U.P. Awas Evam Vikas (Supra) has held as under: 39. …..A right of appeal is conferred by statute or equivalent legislative authority; it is not a mere matter of practice or procedure, and neither the superior nor the inferior court or Tribunal nor both combined can create or take away such a right 69. Further, it is to be noted that, in respect of the appeal filed before the Special Tribunal the issue that arose as to whether the collector has power to sit in revisions over any order passed by the RDO is that, the eviction order passed by the CEO under Section 54 (3) has not been challenged therefore, the consequential order passed by the RDO under Section 55 also cannot be challenged in the writ petition, is against the decision of this Court in Adapapa Venkata Reddy (Supra) , (2004) 3 ALD 105 wherein it has held as under: 8…..Once it has emerged that the 3rd respondent has not passed any order under sub-section (3) of Section 54 of the Act, the occasion to requisition the 1st respondent to evict the encroachers does not arise. On this ground alone the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Hence, the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned order is set aside. 70. It is also pertinent to note that the Special Tribunal is the creature of the statute and can only exercise jurisdiction and powers which are specifically delineated under the enactment or statute. Since, the ROR ACT 2020 under which the Special Tribunal derives its powers does not specially provide for power of review the tribunal at the first instance ought not to have entertained the review petition filed by the petition on 06.04.2021 and further pass order therein dated 11.07.2021 by which time the order under review seize to exist on account of order passes by this Court in W.P. No. 6840 of 2021 dated 16.04.2021. Thus, on this ground also the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 71. Thus, on this ground also the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 71. It is pertinent to note that, once the suit for recovery of possession vide O.S. No.17 of 1971 was filed by the Waqf Board is dismissed vide order dated 05.02.1972 and a subsequent suit vide O.S.No.33 of 1971 for declaration of title and recovery of possession filed by the Waqf Board is also dismissed wherein, the Waqf Board has made a categorical averment that since 1951 V. Bhaskar Rama Rao i.e. petitioner No.1’s father was in possession of the subject property, invoking summary remedy by issuing notice under Section 54 (1) of the Act and thereafter alleged to have passed an order under Section 54 (3) of the Act dated 21.10.2005 at this stage after having lost suits and after the rights been extinguished under the law of limitation, i.e. after 45 years after the execution of registered sale deed in favour of the petitioners cannot be countenanced. Thus, invoking the summary remedy to recover possession would be impermissible by applying the principle as laid down in Thummala Krishna Rao (Supra) wherein it was held as under: 6. …..The summary remedy provided by Section 7, according to the Division Bench, cannot be resorted to “unless there is an attempted encroachment or encroachment of a very recent origin” and further, that it cannot be availed of in cases where complicated questions of title arise for decision. 72. Therefore, in the present case the Tribunal when already has passed an order it cannot at a subsequent stage review its own order dated 15.02.2021 which has been set aside by this Court vide order dated 16.04.2021 in W.P No. 6840 of 2021. B. Issue in regard to Respondent No.5 jurisdiction and authority to decide title: 73. It is pertinent to note that, this Court in W.P.No.25260 of 2011 while setting aside the order dated 25.08.20211 had issued following direction: “5. Accordingly, the order, dated 25.08.2011, passed by respondent No.2 is hereby set aside. The authorities are directed to issue notice to the petitioners herein calling for explanation with regard to their right over the subject property and give an opportunity to submit their arguments along with all relevant documents to substantiate their claim over the said property. The authorities shall also hear all the parties concerned and pass appropriate orders afresh.” 74. The authorities are directed to issue notice to the petitioners herein calling for explanation with regard to their right over the subject property and give an opportunity to submit their arguments along with all relevant documents to substantiate their claim over the said property. The authorities shall also hear all the parties concerned and pass appropriate orders afresh.” 74. Further, the order of the respondent No.5 makes it crystal clear that the finding given therein is not in relation to adjudication of title of the petitioners but is limited to examine the prima facie title in relation to enforcement of order under Section 54 (3) of the Act by exercising powers under Section 55 of the Act, which is a summary enquiry. The same would be evident from the order of respondent No.5 which reads as under: “It is once again made clear that in the light of the orders of the Hon'ble High Court directing this office to receive explanation and examine the rights of the petitioner over the property in question from which he was said to be evicted; this office undertook the exercise of examining the prima facie title in this summary enquiry. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Page 5 of 7 6 petitioner, Venepally Bhaskara Rama Rao cannot be evicted from the land in question and the request of the Chief Executive Officer, Waqf Board under 3rd cited is rejected.” 75. It is also to be noted that, the Waqf Board did not challenge the Order passed in W.P No. 25260 of 2011 and thus, the said order has attained finality. Thus, the respondent No.5 is bound to consider the claim of the petitioners as per the order of the High Court and for the said reason respondent No.7 cannot agitate the said issue in the present case. Further, the contention of the respondents that the respondent No.5 was required to deal with only execution under Section 55 of the Act is without any merit. 76. It is pertinent to note that, as per Section 55 , the respondent No.5 is only an executing authority and cannot decide any other issue which is against the purport of law. Further, the concept of Claim Petitions in execution proceedings is well established under many enactments. 76. It is pertinent to note that, as per Section 55 , the respondent No.5 is only an executing authority and cannot decide any other issue which is against the purport of law. Further, the concept of Claim Petitions in execution proceedings is well established under many enactments. Therefore, the Court had rightly directed the respondent No.5 to decide the claim before eviction Orders were implemented. 77. Since, the Waqf Board has submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the respondent No.5 and has participated in the proceedings without any demur or protest, without raising any ground of jurisdiction cannot now turn around and say the authority had no jurisdiction because orders were passed against it. Such a proposition cannot be countenanced in law. C. Issue relating to service of the order under Section 54 (3): 78. It is pertinent to note that, it is specific case of the petitioners that the order dated 21.10.2005 purported to have been passed under Section 54 (3) of the Act was not served on them. Further, petitioners have specifically pleaded that only when notice under Section 55 of the Act has been issued by the respondent No.5, the petitioners have learnt of the fact that respondent No.7 is claiming to have passed an order and seeking eviction of the petitioners from their land, and has forwarded the alleged proceedings after lapse of 6 years to respondent No.5 and based on the said communication the respondent No.5 having issued notice dated 25.08.2011, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 25260 of 2011. 79. Despite the petitioners assailing the order of the respondent No.7 alleged to have passed under Section 54 (3) of the Act in the W.P. No. 25260 of 2011, neither in the said Writ Petition nor in the present Writ Petition the respondent No.7 did not controvert the said assertion made by the petitioners on oath, by filing any document to show the service of the order passed under Section 54 (3) of the Act by considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 31.05.2005 to the notice issued under Section 54 (1) of the Act. Thus, the submission made to this Court on behalf of respondent No.7 that on the said respondent No.7 passing the aforesaid order, having tried to serve the same through MRO and the petitioners having refused to receive the same in the considered view of the Court is only a self-serving statement and does not merit consideration. 80. It is also interesting to note that while the respondent No.7 claims to have passed the order on 21.10.2005, instead of serving the said order by himself either as prescribed under the Act or in the manner known to law, is claiming that the said order is sought to be served on the petitioners through MRO, who is no way connected with the proceedings initiated by respondent No.7 under the Act for him to effect the service of the orders passed by the respondent No.7. Thus, this Court is of the view that as noted hereinabove that the claim of the respondent No.7 of petitioners refusing to receive the order sought to be served on them by MRO is only invented for the purpose of this case. 81. It is also pertinent to note that the show cause notice dated NIL.10.2004 which was served to the petitioners on 29.03.2005, has also not been denied. The petitioners having submitted explanation on 31.05.2005 to the said notice, it is not shown to this Court that the petitioners being issued with any notice of hearing before passing of alleged order under Section 54 (3) of the Act dated 21.10.2005. 82. It is known proposition of law that once the order by hand is refused, the order has to be served by Registered Post Acknowledgment Due (RPAD) on the party. However, in the present case, no material whatsoever is adduced to show that the order under Section 54 (3) was sent by RPAD. Therefore, the issue of non-service of order under Section 54 (3) has been established by the petitioners and the contention to the contra of the respondent No.7 is liable to be rejected. D. Issue regarding competence of Smt. Zainab Bee to execute sale deed and its validity: 83. Therefore, the issue of non-service of order under Section 54 (3) has been established by the petitioners and the contention to the contra of the respondent No.7 is liable to be rejected. D. Issue regarding competence of Smt. Zainab Bee to execute sale deed and its validity: 83. It is to be noted that, the respondent No.7 on one hand claims subject land as Waqf land being a service Inam and on the other hand claims that on abolition of Inam under Andhra Pradesh Inam Abolition Act of 1955, the property becomes the state property. The said stand of respondent No.7 is self- contradictory for the reason that, if it is only a waqf property then the respondent No.7 would have jurisdiction to claim the proceedings initiated for it to be valid. On the other hand if the property is vested with the state, the respondent No.7 lacks jurisdiction and all the proceedings initiated by him would be void ab initio as the respondent No.7 is not authorized to act on behalf of the state. 84. Further, as per Section 9 (1) of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Inams Abolition Act, 1955, every private building on a Inam land shall from the effect of the date of vesting, vest in the person who owned it immediately before that date and the only condition under Section 9 (3) of 1955 Act, is that the owner of building shall pay non-agricultural tax. The provision reads as under : Section 9 . (1) Every private building, situated within an inam shall, with effect from the date of vesting, vest in the person who owned it immediately before that date. (2) Where an inam land has been converted for any purpose unconnected with agriculture, the holder of such land shall be entitled to keep the land provided that such conversion was not void or illegal under any law in force. (3) The vestings of private buildings or lands under sub-section (1) or (2) shall be subject to the payment of non-agricultural assessment that may be imposed by Government from time to time. 85. (3) The vestings of private buildings or lands under sub-section (1) or (2) shall be subject to the payment of non-agricultural assessment that may be imposed by Government from time to time. 85. In the present case the date of vesting is 01.11.1973 and prior to the said date, 1 st petitioner father obtained permission from the District Collector on 21.12.1962 for construction of cinema hall, as is evident from permission proceedings that in the subject property and two theaters were constructed in the year 1964 and 1971 and the same were running continuously since then as evidenced by license renewals. 86. Therefore, prior to this date of vesting, there was a building existing on the subject land which was owned and possessed by the petitioners (other than the Inamdar). Further, as per Section 9 (c) the petitioners herein have been paying non- agricultural tax as evidenced by demand notice for non-agricultural land assessment. 87. Thus, by applying the provisions of Section 4 (c) and Section 9 (1) of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 the owner of the building becomes the owner without having to be registered as an occupant. Thus, even as per the case of the respondent No. 7, the ownership of the subject land squarely vests with the petitioners herein. 88. In respect of the issue as to whether Sale Deed dated 14.12.1961 executed in favour of petitioner No.1 father is illegal, as permission from the Waqf Board under Section 51 of the Waqf Act, was not obtained, it is to be noted that when the alienation happened in 1961, filing of application under Section 51 of the Act becomes preposterous as the subject property was Gazetted only on 22.02.1990. Even the bar under Section 36-A of the Act, would not apply as the subject property was never Waqf prior to the issuance of notification in the year 1990. 89. It is also pertinent to note that, the ROR ACT , 1971, applies only to agricultural land and does not encompass non-agricultural properties. It is an admitted fact that the subject property has been used for non-agricultural purposes for over 60 years. Given this prolonged usage, the provisions of the ROR ACT are inapplicable to the property in question, and thus the respondents cannot validly claim it agricultural land to invoke the ROR ACT . It is an admitted fact that the subject property has been used for non-agricultural purposes for over 60 years. Given this prolonged usage, the provisions of the ROR ACT are inapplicable to the property in question, and thus the respondents cannot validly claim it agricultural land to invoke the ROR ACT . The long-standing non-agricultural use effectively negates any assertion that the property is an agricultural land given as service Inam given for Ashoorkhana, and consequently, the claim of the respondent No.7 of the subject property to be a waqf must fail as a matter of law and fact. 90. Further, the respondent No.7 has suppressed the fact of the suits filed by the Waqf Board vide O.S. No. 17 of 1971 and O.S. No. 33 of 1971 resulting in dismissal, has invoked summary enquiry invoking provisions of Section 54 of the Act, which act it is to be held as malafide. Further the sale deed of the petitioners was also never challenged, in which case under the provisions of Order II Rule 2 C.P.C., the Waqf Board is barred from making any challenge to the said Sale Deed (See: H.K. Dhruv (Supra)) 91. Further, the claim of the Waqf Board is barred in law as there is a presumption that when a registered document is validly executed it would be prima facie be valid and further it is settled law that until and unless a Sale Deed has been cancelled by a proper declaration, it is valid and binds the parties in the eye of law (See: Prem Singh (Supra) and Ramti Devi (Supra)). 92. It is trite law that, the admission of a party in the proceedings either in the pleadings or oral is the best evidence and the same does not need any corroboration. In the facts of the present petition where a categorical assertion was made by the petitioners that the two suits i.e. O.S. No.17 of 1971 and O.S. No.33 of 1971 filed by the Waqf Board for recovery of possession and declaration of title respectively being dismissed, as admitted by the Waqf Board in their Counter, the same does not need further corroboration (See: Ahmed saheb (Supra)) 93. Thus, the issue regarding the competence of Smt. Zainab Bee to execute sale deed in favour of petitioner No.1 father cannot be agitated again and again. E. Issue regarding challenging the Gazette Notification: 94. Thus, the issue regarding the competence of Smt. Zainab Bee to execute sale deed in favour of petitioner No.1 father cannot be agitated again and again. E. Issue regarding challenging the Gazette Notification: 94. In regard to the issue of not challenging the Gazette Notification within one year under Section 6 of the Act is concerned, it is to be noted that, the Gazette Notification is binding only between the Muthawalli, the Waqf Board and the person interested. The petitioners herein being non-Muslims are not bound by the Gazette notification and the embargo of one year under Section 6 does not apply to them. 95. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Board of Muslim Waqfs (Supra) has held as under: 38. We are in agreement with this reasoning of the High Court. 39. It follows that where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Waqfs under sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises. 96. Further, in regard to the respondents contention that the petitioners became aware of the notification in the year 2011 is concerned, it is pertinent to note that, there was no order passed adverse to the interest of the petitioners requiring it to challenge the Gazette Notification. When the respondent No.5 passed orders of eviction against the petitioners, the same was challenged in W.P. No.25260 of 2011 which was set aside. Subsequently, the respondent No.5 passed orders refusing eviction. As such only when the Tribunal by wrongly assuming jurisdiction relying upon the Gazette Notification passed order dated 15.02.2021, the rights of the petitioners were affected and as such, the petitioners filed Writ Petition. Subsequently, the respondent No.5 passed orders refusing eviction. As such only when the Tribunal by wrongly assuming jurisdiction relying upon the Gazette Notification passed order dated 15.02.2021, the rights of the petitioners were affected and as such, the petitioners filed Writ Petition. Even otherwise, delay is not a ground to refuse a relief in Writ Petition when substantial rights and interest in immovable property of the parties are involved (See: Vidya Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh , [ (2020) 2 SCC 569 ] ). 97. In respect of the contention raised by the respondents that even if Gazette Notification is set aside the property is still remains a Waqf as ‘once a Waqf always a Waqf’ wherein, it is to be noted that, once a right extinguished as per law of limitation, the necessary corollary which would follow the right of the Waqf Board would stand extinguished. Further the concept of ‘once a Waqf always a Waqf’ would not apply to the factual situation of the present case as the Waqf Board itself filed suit for declaration of title and the same was dismissed and it has been unable to establish that the subject property was Waqf property (See: T. Kaliamurthi v. Five Gori Thaikkal Waqf , (2008) 9 SCC 306 ) 98. In this regard the contention that the property would continue to stay Waqf irrespective of it being notified and the fact that the notification is set aside are both untenable contentions and are contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in T. Kaliamurthi (Supra) 99. It is also pertinent to note that, the impugned gazette dated 22.02.1990 at page No.248 in serial No.14505issued with respect to the waqf properties did not mention the file number, whereas the other corresponding properties in the same list mentions their respective file numbers. Further, the Gazette Notification whereby the land of Ac 6-24 gts to be waqf property forming part of the Sy Nos.119, 35 and 34 does not specify the extent of land falling in each of the Survey Number aggregating to the total extent of Ac 6-24 gts notified as waqf land. Further, the Gazette Notification whereby the land of Ac 6-24 gts to be waqf property forming part of the Sy Nos.119, 35 and 34 does not specify the extent of land falling in each of the Survey Number aggregating to the total extent of Ac 6-24 gts notified as waqf land. If only a survey was conducted on ground as claimed the extent of land in each of the survey numbers would have found mention in the gazette notification the non-mention of the aforesaid details clearly lends credence to the claim of the petitioners that the survey was only a paper survey without thereby being a physical survey on the ground. 100. Therefore, the impugned gazette issued by the respondent No.1 after 29 years where all its rights being extinguished cannot be countenanced. By virtue of the impugned gazette, the limitation prescribed under Waqf Act had also completed. Further, prior to the publishing of the impugned Gazette, the petitioners herein were in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property. Therefore, the right which stood extinguished as per the Public Waqf (Extension of Limitation) Amendment Act, 1959 cannot be clandestinely revived and the Section 107 of the 1995 Act, is prospective in nature and would not apply retrospectively. The erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Managing Committee Masjid-e-Ibrahimia (Supra) has held as under: 14. ……the petitioner-plaintiff cannot be heard to contend that the bar contained therein, is applicable even to execution petitions, and more so when the Waqf Act is not given any retrospective effect. 101. It is pertinent to note that on the contention of the respondents, that the petitioners constructed cinema halls and buildings after taking the requisite alleged Survey report showing that there are no occupants and the land is vacant is without any basis. Further, it is an admitted fact that the date of the alleged Survey according to the Waqf Board is 01.07.1971 but the date of Gazette is 22.09.1990, which clearly shows gap of 19 years from the date the alleged Survey till the date of publication. The long duration between the conducting of the alleged survey and the date of publication renders the survey contrary to the Waqf Act. Accordingly, the Division Bench of this Court in L. Srinivasa Reddy (Supra) has held as under: 16. The long duration between the conducting of the alleged survey and the date of publication renders the survey contrary to the Waqf Act. Accordingly, the Division Bench of this Court in L. Srinivasa Reddy (Supra) has held as under: 16. A learned Single Judge of this Court, in W.P. No. 9378 of 2009, by order dated 06.02.2012, while dealing with the very same notification, dated 09.02.1989, in respect of Sy. Nos. 302 and 303 of this very same village i.e. Mamidipally Village, under similar set of facts, has held as under: “From this, it is clear that a detailed survey is required to be conducted. The publication of the notification must be soon, though not immediate, after the survey. The reason is that, any events, that occur between the date of survey, and date of publication of the notification would render the very exercise futile. If any substantial development takes place between the two events, the survey conducted earlier can not at all constitute the basis for publication. Even otherwise, unreasonable delay would defeat the very objective, underlying the provision. It was way back in the year 1960, that the survey in respect of the land in Sy. Nos. 299 to 306 of Mamidipally village was conducted under Section 4 of the Waqf Act, 1954. The publication was made only in the year 1989. In the period of three decades, that has intervened, several legislative and administrative changes have taken place. The Inams Act came into force, and in the course of its implementation, the ORCs were granted in respect of the lands. Had any survey been conducted immediately preceding the publication in the year 1989, the fact that the petitioners or their predecessors in title had in possession and enjoyment of the property, as absolute owners or were issued ORCs; could have been noticed, and issuance of notification would certainly have become doubtful. By no stretch of imagination, the survey conducted in the year 1960 can be said to be the basis for publication of a notification in the year 1989. Therefore, the notification dated 09.02.1989 cannot be said to be inconformity with the provisions of the Waqf Act. This Court, in B. Gowra Reddy's case (supra) dealt with the manner in which the notification under challenge herein was issued, and expressed the view that it does not accord with law. Therefore, the notification dated 09.02.1989 cannot be said to be inconformity with the provisions of the Waqf Act. This Court, in B. Gowra Reddy's case (supra) dealt with the manner in which the notification under challenge herein was issued, and expressed the view that it does not accord with law. The principle laid down therein covers the facts of this case also. 102. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sabir Ali Khan v. Syed Mohd. Ahmad Ali Khan and Others , [2023 SCC OnLine SC 415] has held as under: 68. The argument that Section 107 of the Act will assist the appellant in tiding over the bar of limitation does not appeal to us. Section 107 of the Act, no doubt, proclaims that nothing in the Limitation Act, 1963 shall apply to any suit for possession of the immovable property comprised in any waqf or for possession of any interest in such property. 69. The Act came into force on 01.01.1996. The first sale was effected on 14.10.1960. The second sale was effected on 26.09.1974. As far as the first sale is concerned, we have already found that Article 96 cannot be pressed into service as the transfer was not purported to be made by the Mutawalli. The doors stood open for the application of Article 65. As far as the second sale is concerned which was effected in the year 1974 in view of our finding that Article 96 was not applicable, the only other competing Article vying for acceptance, appears to be Article 65. Applying Article 65 and as the adverse possession would kick in from the date of the transfer, on the expiry of twelve years, i.e., in 1986 applying Section 27 of the Limitation Act whatever title remained within the meaning of Section 65 would stand extinguished. The Act was brought into force only with effect from 01.01.1996. We cannot understand the purport of Section 107 to be that it would revive an extinguished title as nothing stood in the way of running of time from the date of the second sale under the law as it stood. 103. Further, the respondent No.7 has not placed any material on record whatsoever to establish that the subject property was ever Waqf. 103. Further, the respondent No.7 has not placed any material on record whatsoever to establish that the subject property was ever Waqf. Further, the pleadings in the Counter were also silent as to (i) when was the waqf formed, (ii) how the dedication was made, (iii) details of the waqf nama/gift deed, (iv) the activities of the waqf etc. In this regard there is absolutely no documentary evidence to show that there was a dedication/Waqf made in accordance with law at any time and the impugned gazette is purportedly published 19 years after the alleged survey after failing to obtain a decree from the Civil Court on two separate occasions. 104. It is also pertinent to note that, the entire counter of the respondent is silent as to how the dedication was made and further there is no proof of the dedication in the pleadings which is supported and also no documentary evidence is placed to establish that infact a waqf was made in the subject land. 105. On the contrary, in the survey report, it is categorically mentioned that no activity on the subject land related to the Waqf such as ‘Urus etc.’ was ever performed. The survey report also clearly shows that there is no Waqf Deed or Hiba in favour of the Waqf and there was nothing in writing to show that the original pattadar ever made a Waqf in respect of the subject property. Therefore, the respondent No.7 could not have unilaterally decided that the property as Waqf without recording any reasons as to how and why the property is included as waqf more so having lost the suit for declaration of title. (See: AP State Waqf Borad (Supra) 106. Further, a perusal of the survey report would indicate a patent discrepancy as to the details of the waqf property as mentioned therein. In the Form of Proforma for survey of waqf properties under which the respondent No.7 claim to have conducted survey, Sl.No.11 thereof provides for the details of waqf property; against the said entry in the Form, the survey numbers mentioned are Sy.Nos.33, 34 and 119. Thus, as per the report, the survey is purported to have been conducted in respect of said survey numbers mentioned therein. Thus, as per the report, the survey is purported to have been conducted in respect of said survey numbers mentioned therein. However, in the impugned Gazette Notification issued, the survey numbers mentioned are Sy.Nos.34, 35 and 119, without there being any survey conducted in respect of lands in Sy.No.35. This glaring variation reveal the fundamental error in the identification of the property and also casts serious doubt on the manner and authenticity of the claim of respondent No.7 of having conducted survey at the relevant point of time. 107. Further, the respondent No.7 had claimed of survey having been completed in 1971 and the report having been forwarded to the Government for issuing Gazette notification, though the respondent No.7 claimed to have conducted survey in 1971 and noting the details in the form of proforma, a close scrutiny of the Form particularly the left hand corner would show that 40,000 copies of the said Form having printed on 21.06.1975. This raises a serious doubt as to the claim of respondent No.7 of having conducted a survey and submitting the report. 108. It is also pertinent to note that in the Form of proforma for the survey in Serial No.8, the details of ‘If in unauthorized possession- particulars of trespassers’ is required to be noted. Against the said entry in Form, it has been left ‘blank’, implying that at the time of the alleged survey, there was no unauthorized occupation or trespassers over the subject property. However, the fact of the petitioners having constructed a cinema hall way back in the year 1964 after obtaining necessary permissions, would show that no actual survey was in fact conducted as contended by the petitioners. If only, an actual survey was conducted on the subject land, the existence of a structure namely cinema hall could not have escaped from the Surveyor’s view for it to be noted in the form. Thus, the alleged claim of respondent No.7 having conducted survey in the year 1971 is only a make-believe. 109. If only, an actual survey was conducted on the subject land, the existence of a structure namely cinema hall could not have escaped from the Surveyor’s view for it to be noted in the form. Thus, the alleged claim of respondent No.7 having conducted survey in the year 1971 is only a make-believe. 109. Therefore, this Court is of the view that notwithstanding the long gap between the alleged Survey conducted under Section 4 (3) and the publication under Section 5(2) would not only render the notification issued invalid, on account of the observations made hereinabove, would lead to inevitable conclusion that in fact no survey was actually conducted as the time at that time as alleged by issuing notice to person in occupation of the subject land, for the impugned gazette notification to be sustained. F. Issue regarding powers under Article 226 to go into disputed question of facts: 110. It is to be noted that, a gazette notification can be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by invoking the writ jurisdiction of the Court and Section 83 is no bar for the same and the said issue is no longer res-integra as per the decision of this Court in Gosula Ramulu (Supra) wherein it has held as under: 65. But the Tribunal has not been conferred jurisdiction under the Act to decide the validity of the action of the State Government in publishing in the Gazette under Sec.5(2) of the Act. No provision of the Act is brought to the notice of the Court by the respondents other than the above referred provisions regarding power of the Waqf Tribunal to decide the validity of the Gazette publication by Counsel for respondents. 75 . If Civil Courts jurisdiction in relation to every matter relating to Waqf or Waqf property is not ousted, then neither can the High Courts jurisdiction be ousted. 76 . I have already held that the Waqf Tribunal has not been conferred jurisdiction under Section 6 and 7 of the Waqf Act, 1995 to decide the validity of the action of the State Government in publishing in the Gazette the notification notifying list of Waqf properties. Therefore the Writ Petition nos. 20468, 20469 and 20470 of 2006 challenging such a Gazette notification are maintainable. Therefore the Writ Petition nos. 20468, 20469 and 20470 of 2006 challenging such a Gazette notification are maintainable. A similar view was also taken in A.P. State Waqf Board (Supra) wherein it has held as under: 122 . Thus, the State Government, as a juristic entity, has a right to protect its property through the writ court, just as any individual could have invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court. Therefore, the State Government is competent to invoke the writ jurisdiction against the action of the Waqf Board to declare the land measuring 1654 acres and 32 guntas as waqf property. 111. At the outset, the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are very wide and the restriction as regards exercise jurisdiction by the High Court where alternate remedy exists is self-imposed. Further, there are no disputed questions of fact in the present case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P. , [ (2021) 6 SCC 771 ] has held as under: 27.1. The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs can be exercised not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but for any other purpose as well. 27.3. Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where : (a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or (d)the vires of a legislation is challenged. 27.4. An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law. 27.5. When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion. 27.6. In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition. This rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion. 27.6. In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition. However, if the High Court is objectively of the view that the nature of the controversy requires the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would not readily be interfered with. 112. Further, after the conclusion of arguments, though, the counsel for the respondent No.7 has raised a contention that in respect of Inam Abolition Act, the crucial date for determination is not the date of vesting but the date on which the Act came into force, it is to be noted that the said contention cannot be allowed to be raised at this stage, in the absence of any plea being taken by respondent No.7 in its counter or in any earlier proceeding. VI. Conclusion: 113. In view of the above, the Writ Petition vide W.P.No.21210 of 2021 is allowed, and the Andhra Pradesh Gazette bearing No.8-A Part-2 dated 22.02.1990 at Serial Number 14505 at page No.248 in respect of land in Sy.No.35 admeasuring Ac.1-22 gts equivalent to 7000 sq. yards situated in Nalgonda Town is set aside. 114. Insofar as W.P.No.18633 of 2021 is concerned, this Court is of the view that since the Special Tribunal by the impugned order dated 11.07.2021 had reviewed its earlier order dated 15.02.2021 which order was subject matter of consideration before this Court in W.P.No.6840 of 2021 and this Court by order dated 16.04.2021 having set aside the said order and remanding the matter back to the Special Tribunal Special Tribunal for fresh consideration, the purported exercise of review power in the absence of any specific power being conferred by the ROR ACT not only makes the said order vitiated but also without sanction of law apart from the Special Tribunal sitting in judgment over the order of this Court in W.P.No.6840 of 2021 which is not permitted in law, apart from the said action being highly deplorable but also amounting to contempt. 115. 115. Accordingly, W.P.No.18633 of 2021 is allowed and the order of the Special Tribunal No.F2/Spl Tribunal/0253/2021 (Old Case No.F2/231/2019 before the Old Revenue Court, Additional Collector), dated 11.07.2021 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Special Tribunal, Nalgonda for consideration afresh in terms of order passed in W.P.No.6840 of 2021. Further, the Special Tribunal while adjudicating the matter afresh, is directed to take note of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.21210 of 2021. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed. No order as to costs.