WRIT PETITION 1215 on 16 March 1989

ORDER:

The writ petitioner, Syed [Alamdar ][Hussain, ][seeks ][a ][review ][of ][the]order dated [26.04.2024 ][passed ][by this ][Court ][in ][the ][writ ][petition. ][The matter]relates to a dispute [regarding ][the ][notification ][of ][the ][petitioner's ][propefty,]located at premises [No.22-3-420 ][(Old ][No. ][t ][107), ][admeasuring ][180 ][square]yards, situate at [Kaman ][Elchi ][Baig, ][Near ][Mandi ][Mir ][Alam, ][Hyderabad, ][in]Gazette Notification [No. ][11-A, dated ][16.03.1989, ][as ][a ][Wakf ][property' ][By]the order [under ][review, ][the ][Court ][relegated ][the petitioner ][to ][approach ][the]Wakf Tribunal [under Section ][83 ][of ][the ][Wakf ][Act, ][1995']

2. Heard Mr. Jalli [Kanakaiah, leamed counsel ][for ][the petitioner; ][Mr']Abu Akram, [Ieamed ][standing ][counsel for ][the ][wakf ][Board; ][and also learned]Government [Pleaders appearing ][for ][the ][Revenue Department, ][General]Administration [Department, ][and ][Home Deparlment. ][Perused ][the ][record.]

3. Leamed counsel for [the ][petitioner essentially ][contends that ][the ][subject]was [purchased ][by ][the ][petitioner for ][a ][valid ][sale ][consideration ][lrom]property M.D. Mayadevi [Vigg, wife ][of Niranjan ][Lal Vigg. in ][2015; ][and ][Mayadevi]purchased the said [property ][from ][one ][Syed ][Abbas Hussaini ][Naqvi ][back ][in]1976.It is [also ][contended ][that the ][property ][is ][180 square ][yards ][of ][land ][and]that the [petitioner ]obtained [permissions ][from ][GHMC ][for ][construction ][of ][a]house almost a decade [ago ][by ][fumishing ][relevant documents. ][Therefore, ][the]actio4 of the respondent Wakf [authorities ][to ][dispossess ][the ][petitioner from]

e! ew r 12024&ia 3 2024rn wp 1215 2019NBK, ]rn wp 1215 2019NBK, ]

the property is illegal. It is also contended that there is nc 'Wakfnama" forthe subject property or details of the persons who dona.ed the propertytowards Wakf, and in the absence of any such details, the propcfty cannotbe designated a Wakf property. Thus, its inclusion in tlre list of Wakfproperties by the impugned Gazette Notification is illegal ald without basis.Leamed counsel contends that the 3rd respondent Wakl-llcard has failed toprovide any material in support of their contention that tlLe subject propeffyis a Wakf propefty. The only ground being canvasse d by the leamedStanding Counsel lor the Wakf Board is that the imtugned GazetteNotification was published on 16.03.1989 and ougrr to have beenchallenged bcfbre the Wakf Tribunal within a year. Such c()ntention cannotwithstand legal scrutiny in the absence of any reliable m..tcrial establishingthat the subject property is a Wakf property.

3.1 L.earned counsel also contends that the er;st:ntial grievance concems the emoneous inclusion of the petitioner,s progrerty in the Iist ofWaklproperties. This Court granted an interim order dated 18.02.2019 and.thereafter, on 01.12..?.022 observed that the survey repor. r.:lated to f{ouseNo. 4-3-4 I 9, and instead of notiflu ing that propeft\,, thc authoririesWaklproperties. This Court granted an interim order dated 18.02.2019 and.thereafter, on 01.12..?.022 observed that the survey repor. r.:lated to f{ouseNo. 4-3-4 I 9, and instead of notiflu ing that propeft\,, thc authoririeserroneously notified House No. 4-3-420 in the inrpugned GazetteNotiflcation. Leamed counsel submits that the very act r,f notilying thepetitioner's property in the Gazette Notification, when it is not a Wakfpropefiy by any strctch of the definition, is illegal; and fher:fore prays thatNotiflcation. Leamed counsel submits that the very act r,f notilying thepetitioner's property in the Gazette Notification, when it is not a Wakfpropefiy by any strctch of the definition, is illegal; and fher:fore prays thatrelegating the petitioner to an altemative remedy at lh s stage wouldelfectively deprive him of his right to live in the place he l:.wfu[y purchasedand has been occupying after obtaining all legal pernrissions fiom thecompetent authority.elfectively deprive him of his right to live in the place he l:.wfu[y purchasedand has been occupying after obtaining all legal pernrissions fiom thecompetent authority.

\

review ra 1 2o24&ia 3 20)4' in wp_1215 2019NBK,.J

3.2 lt is also contended that notice under Section 54(l) of the WakfAct was issued in respect of one Smt. Shahzadi Begum concerning thesubject property, but no such person by that name or pafiiculars residesthere; therefore, no notice was effectively given to the petitioner.

3.3 Learned counsel relies on the [judgment ]of the Hon'bleSupreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks,Mumbai,, and also the common order passed by the Hon'ble Division Benchofthis Court in W.A. No. 1432 of 2016 & batch, wherein the Division Benchextensively deatt with the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of theConstitution, and permitted the petitioner therein to pursue the writ petition.Therefore, learned counsel prays that the petitioner herein be placed onsimilar footing, having suffered from the illegal inclusion of the subjectproperty in the list of Wakf properties, without any evidence such as a"Wakfnama" or "Donor" details in respect of the subject property.Consequently, the leamed counsel prays to review the Order dated26.04.2024 passed in the writ petition in the interest ofjustice.

4. Learned Standing Counsel does not dispute the submissions of theleamed counsel for the petitioner insofar as the non-furnishing of relevantdocuments that apparently formed the basis for Gazette Notification No. 1 1Anotiffing the petitioner's property. Further, the contention that no notice wasgiven to the petitioner, although a notice was apparently given to one Smt.Shahzadi Begum who is not a resident of the subject premises, is also notdisputed. Leamed Standing Counsel refers to the petitioner's prayer that thesubject property is 180 square yards, lawfully purchased by the petitioner,,with construction undertaken after obtaining due permissions from GHMC,and that it has been eroneously included as a Wakf property. The Standing rerew r, 1 2024 &ia 3 20)4rn wp 1215-2019NBK, ]

Counsel lairly submits that the Court may pass appropriiLte orders in theapplication by considering the submissions and material ,rn record.

5. Having considered the respective contentions and pe used the record,it is undisputed that the petitioner is in possession of thc subject property.However, Gazette Notification No. 11-A, dated 16.03.1989, lists thepetitioner's propefty as a Wakf property. At the stage of clisposal of the writpetition, Leamed Standing Counsel has not placed any rraterial to supportthe contention that the subject property qualifies as a Wakf propefty.Similarly, in thcse review proceedings, no material has bcen placed insuppoft of Gazette Notiflcation No. 11-A, which led to th,) ( ategorization olthe subject propert), as Wakf property.

5.1 Further, in the interim order dated 18.02.2119, this Courtdirected that the petitioner shall not be dispossessed wirho rt following theprovisions of the Wakl'Act, 1995. Thereafter, on 01.11,.)022, this Courtobserved that "the survey repoft relates to House No. 4-)-119, but insteadof notifuing t.hat property, respondents have notified House No. 4-3-420 inthe impugned Gazette Notification No. l1-A dated 16.03 11)89." The Courtdirected tlrc lcanred Standing Counsel to obtain spc,..iric instructions.Notably, even in the counter affidavit, there is no materie.l [.o ]show that thesubject property u,as donated for religious purposes 11, an authorized"Donor," or by a "Wakfnama," or by any duly authorized process under law.

5,2 In the instant case, except for Gazette Notitrcation No. I l-Adated 16.03. I 989, no supporling material has been presented that led to suchGazette publication. Furthemore, this Court specificatly observed on01.12.2022, after pcrusing the survey report, that the survcv report relates to rev,ew,a 1 2O)4 &ia _1-)O)4rn wp_1215_2O19N8K,I

House No. 4-3-419, but instead of notifuing property No. 4-3-419, therespondents notified property No. 4-3-420, where the petitioner resides. Inview of this, the action of the respondent authorities notifiing the subjectrespondents notified property No. 4-3-420, where the petitioner resides. Inview of this, the action of the respondent authorities notifiing the subjectproperty as a Wakf property by Gazette Notification No. l1-A dated16.03.1989 is arbitrary and illegal.16.03.1989 is arbitrary and illegal.

6. At this [juncture, ]it is relevant to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Courthas laid down the ambit and scope of a Review Petition under Order 47 RuleI CPC in Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawatir, and the interpretation of theprinciple i.e., "any other suffrcient reason" listed under Paragraph 20(iii) ofKamlesh Verma (supra) was given in Chajju Ram v. Neki2 as "a reasonsfficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule", andthe said interpretation was approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court inMoran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasiuss,and the same principle has been reiterated in Union of India v. SandurManganese & Iron Ores Limiteda and also in Madhusu<Ihan Reddy v.Narayan Reddys by the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

7. This Court passed the Order dated 26.04.2024 after considering thatthe learned Standing Counsel disputed the petitioner's claim, though he didnot place any material evidence in support of the declaration of the subjectproperty as Wakf property, and therefore relegated the parties to thealternative remedy under Section 83 of the Act.

r (2013) I SCC 320') [11922) ][24 ][BoMLR 1238]') [11922) ][24 ][BoMLR 1238]

r ArR 1954 sc 5264 (2013) 8 SCC 3374 (2013) 8 SCC 337

s 2022 Livelaw (sc) 685

\

re,rew a 12024&ia32A)4in wp 1215 2019N8K, Jin wp 1215 2019N8K, J

7.1 l{owever-, considering the law laid down jn Kamlesh Verma(supra) and Chafiu Ram (supra), as r,*,ell as the respective contentions in thisreview petition, and noting the absence of any materia to support thedeclaration of the sub.jecr propemy as Wakf propeq, br the impugnedGazette Notihcation. and lurther that the failure to iss re notice underSection 54(i) of the Act amounts to a violation of the principles of naturaljustice, this court is of the considered opinion that relegati.rg the petitionerto an altemative remedy u'ould amount to perpetuating an sr.or that occurredin the publication ol the impugned Gazette Notificatio, \,ro. 1r-A dated16.03.1989. Therelbre, rhis courr is inclined to revieu.the order dated26.04.2024 passed in the writ petition.

8. Accordingly, rhe revicu.petition, i.e., Review I.A. No. I of 2024,isallowed. consequently, Gazette Notification No. ri-A <ra,.ed 16.03.r9g9.insofar as the inclusion o f petirioner's property No.22-3-4'.r0 (old No. I 107)is concemed, is hereby set aside. The 3rd respondent wak|Board is directedto take appropriate steps fbr deretion of the subject property from the list ofwakf properties within six weeks from the date of receipr of a copy of thisorder. No costs. In view of the allowance of Review I.A. I,Jr,. I of 2024, noseparate orders are required in I.A. No. 3 of 2024 relating t, suspension ofthe order datecl 26.04.2024 passed in the writ petition, ancL therefore I.A.No' 3 of 2024 is closed. Miscclraneous petitions pending, if any, shalr alsostand closed To . SD/. U.SUDHAAASISTANT REGISTRARt\'\! --=-:,-=---SEcTIoN oFFIcER

//TRUE COPYII

1' The Principar secretarv, .Revenue Department secreta)iert r)uirdings, state ofTelangana at Hvderabld.Telangana at Hvderabld.2 The Principar secretary, Generar Administration Departmerrt, secretariatDepartmerrt, secretariat^ [Buildings, ][State of ][Telangana at ][HyderabiJ]3 The Chief Executive Offiier, Telangrn" Sirt" Wakf Boarr,, Razzak Manzil3 The Chief Executive Offiier, Telangrn" Sirt" Wakf Boarr,, Razzak Manzil Opp, Public Gardens, Nampally, Hyderabad.

4. The Station House Officer, lVliralam Police Station, Hyderabad.

5. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of [Telangana ][at]Hyderabad. [OUT]Hyderabad. [OUT]

6. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana atHyderabad lOUTlHyderabad lOUTl

7. Two CCs to GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION, High Court [for ]the [State]of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

8. One CC to SRI J.KANAKAIAH, One CC to SRI J.KANAKAIAH, Advocate [OPUC]

8. One CC to SRI J.KANAKAIAH, One CC to SRI J.KANAKAIAH, Advocate [OPUC]g One CC to SRI ABU AKRAM, Advocate [OPUC]g One CC to SRI ABU AKRAM, Advocate [OPUC]

'10.Two CD Copies

SA

PVL

HIGH COURT

C.C. TODAY

DATED:10 11012025

ORDER

&30F2024|.A.NOS.1 INWP.No.1215 of 2019

i,\-{L.l/.\ \,LItir j*)[()]--14 otT [;il]I -i:r:,-. [- ][;']i,' [ti,]l!";/-t. ,..'\i$'\---,-.,)-.Q-){-:,. " .

REVIEW I.A.NO.1 OF [2024]IS ALLOWED, I.A.NO.3 [OF 2024]IS CLOSED WITHOUT [COSTS.]

/4

44

,/// /ta/;L/