/i 1 APHC010255262023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT APPEAL Nos:1013. 1037. 1041. 1042 & 1063 of 2023 WRIT APPEAL NO: 1013 OF 2023 Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred order dated 23-06-2022 in W.P.No. 11831^2021 on the file of the High Court. Between: The A.P. State Wakf Board, Rep by its Chief Executive Officer, Kaleswara Rao Market, Vijayawada. RAO against the ...Petitioner AND 1. Madem Maha Lakshmi, W/o M.Nemali Reddy, Aged about H.No.76-100/3-1, Radha Nagar, Kurnool City and District. 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, A.P. 3. The Sub-Registrar, Stamps and Registration, Kallur, Kurnool 4. The Tahsildar, Kalluru (M), Kurnool Dist. 50 years, R/o Di§t. ...Respondents lA NO: 4 OF Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to STAY of all proceedings in respect of the operation of the judgment and order passed by Hon'ble single judge in W.P.No.11831 of 2021 dated.23.06.2022 by allowing this I.A. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to received the Additional Affidavit in support of the delay condonation petition in the circumstances and the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SHAIK KHAJA BASHA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS Counsel for the Respondents: SRI K RATHANGA PANI REDDY APHC010255162023 WRIT APPEAL NO: 1037 OF 2023 Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dated 23-06-2022 in W.P.No.1195^f 2021 on the file of the High Court. Between: The Andhra Pradesh State Waqf Board, Rep by its Chief Executive Officer Kaleswara Rao Market, Vijayawada. ...Petitioner AND Murthy, S/o T. Gatanna, Aged about 60 years, R/o H.No.43/257E N.R. Peta, Kurnool City and District. 2.State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District,.A.P. 3. The Sub-Registrar, Stamps and Registration, Kallur, Kurnool District 4. The Tahsildar, Kalluru (M), Kurnool Djst. A.P. ...Respondents 3 lA NO: 3 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant STAY of all proceedings in respect of the operation of the Judgment and order passed by the Hon'ble single Judge in W.P.No. 11950 of 2021 dated 23- 06-2022 by allowing this I.A. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to received the Additional Affidavit in support of the delay condonation petition in the circumstances and the interest of justice. ' Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SHAIK KHAJA BASHA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS Counsel for the Respondents: SRI K RATHANGA PANI REDDY APHC010255132023 WRIT APPEAL NO: 1041 OF 2023 Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dated 20.09.2022 passed in W.P. 30564 of 2022 on the file of the High Court. Between: The Andhra Pradesh State Waqf Board, Rep.by its Chief Executive Officer ImdadGhar, Kaleswara Rao Market, Vijayawada, Krishna (NTR) District. ...Petitioner AND r I.Shaik Mohammed Ibrahim, S/o.Mahaboob Sahed, Aged about 73 R/o.H.No.4-89, Kallur Road, Nandikotkur, Kurnool District. 2. Shaik Mohammad Khasim, S/o. Mahaboob Sahed, Aged about 67 R/o.H.No.27-4, Rangaraju Street, Near Maale Basaish Temple, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 3. Shaik Mohammad Basha, S/o.Shaik Shalisha, R/o.H.No.87/ 1060-2-F, Flat No.76, Ganesh Nagar, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 4. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Stamps Registration Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District 5. The Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 6. The District Registrar, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 7. The Sub-Registrar, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District. years. years. Aged about 57 years, and ...Respondents lA NO: 3 OF 202.3 Petition under Section 151cCPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant STAY of all proceedings in respect of the operation of the Judgment and order passed by the Hon'ble single Judge in W.P.No. 30564 of 2022 dated.20.09.2022 by allowing this I.A. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to received the Additional Affidavit in support of the delay condonation petition in the circumstanoes^ and the interest of justice. 5 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SHAIK KHAJA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REGISTRATION Counsel for the Respondents: SRI K RATHANGA PANI APHC010255462023 BASRA AND STAMPS REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO: 1042 OF 2023 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against order dated 18-04-2022 in W.P. No. 18796 of 2021 Between: The Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board, Rep by its Chief Executive Officer Kaleswara Rao Market, Vijayawada. on the file of the High Court. ...Petitioner AND 1. M/s Kausalya Management Services and Structures Director Sri Dugyala Ravinder Rao S/o Chokka No.50, West'Maredpalli, Secunderabad. Hyderabad-50Q0026. 2. Y Surender Reddy, S/o Seshachalam Reddy, Aged 51 years 232, New Bus stand, Bethamcherla post and Mandal Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Rao, Aged 52 years. R/o Plot R/o H.No.3- Kurnool Dist. 3. Y Kiran Kumar Reddy, S/o Surendranath H.No.3-232,New Bus stand, Bethamcherla Reddy, Aged 30years, R/o post and Mandal, Kurnool Dist. 4. M Chandra Sekhar Reddy, S/o Ramakrishna Reddy Aged 34 years, R/o H.No.8-288-1, Near Guest House, Banganapalli post and Mandal, Kurnool Dist. 5. D Sankara Reddy, S/o Seshi Reddy, aged 26 years, R/o H.No.8-288-1, Near Guest House, Banaganapalli Post and Mandal 6. Chennnareddigari Nagar Jyothi, W/o Nagabhushana R/o H.No.8-288-6, Near Guest Kurnool Dist. , , Kurnool Dist. r Reddy, aged 39 years, and Mandal, House, Banaganapalli Post 7. Chennnareddigari Naga Bhushana Reddy, S/o Seshi Reddy, aged 39 years, R/o H.No.8-288-6, Near Guest House, Banaganapalli Post and Mandal Kurnool Dist. 8. The joint Sub Registrar, Kallur, Kurnool 9. The Inspector General of stamps and Registration 10. The Dist Coiiector, Kurnool, Kurnool State of Andhra A.P.Secretariat, Velagapudi at Amaravati Dist. . A.P^Vijayawada. Dist. Pradesh, rep. by its PrI. Secretary, Revenue J, Guntur Dist ...Respondents lA NO: 3 OF Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit flied in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant STAY of all proceedings in respect of the operation of the Judgment and order passed by'fhe Hon’ble single Judge 04-2022 by allowing this I.A. in W.P.No.18796 of 2021 dated 18- lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC in the affidavit filed i praying that in the circumstances stated in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to received the Additional Affidavit i support of the delay condonation petition the circumstances and the interest of justice. in Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SHAIK KHAJA BASRA 7 Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REGISTRATION Counsel for the Respondents: SRI K RATHANGA PANI i APHC010548052023 AND STAMPS REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO: 1063 OF 202Z^ Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent order dated 30-12-2021 passed in W.P.No.5190 of .2021, High Court. Between: The Andhra Pradesh State Waqf Board, Rep by its Chief Executive Kaleswara Rao Market, Vijayawada. preferred against on the file of the r'' Officer ...Petitioner AND 1. Shaik Shamshunnisa Begum, W/o Shaik Subhan years, R/o Door No.41/589, B.Kothapeta street, Kurnool. Basha, aged about 65 (Respondent/ Writ petitioner in W.P.No.5190 of 2021) 2. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Dept. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi. r’ 3. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its PrI. Secretary Registration Stamps Department, Secretariat, Veiagapudi, Amaravatj.^- 4. The District Collector, Kurnool./'^ 5. The Tahsildar, Kalluru (M) Kurnool Dist., 6. The Sub-Registrar, Kallur (M) Kurnool Dist. and ...Respondents lA NO: 2 OF 202.-^ Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to r grant STAY of all proceedings in respect of the operation of the Judgment and order passed by the Hon'ble single Judge in W.P.No. 5190 of 2021 dated 30- 12-2021 by allowing this I.A. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to received the Additional Affidavit in support of the delay condonation the circumstances and the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SHAIK KHAJA BASHA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REGISTRATION Counsel for the Respondents: SRI K RATHANGA PANI REDDY The Court made the following common judgment: petition in AND STAMPS 1 RRR, J & JS, J W.A.Nos.1013, 1037, 1041, 1042 & 1063 of 2023 APHC0102S5262023 IN THE HIGH GOURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3541] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT APPEAL No:1013. 1037. 1041, 1042 & 1063 of 2023 W.A.No.1013/2023 Between: ...APPELLANT The AP State Wakf Board AND Madem Maha Lakshmi and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1.SHAIKKHAJA BASHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE 2.K RATHANGA PANI REDDY 3.GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS (AP) 2 RRR, J & JS, J W.A,Nos.1013, 1037, 1041, 1042 & 1063 of 2023 W.A.No: 1037/2023 Between: The Ap State Waqf Board ...APPELLANT AND T Rama Murthy and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1.SHAIKKHAJA BASRA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE 2.K RATHANGA PANI REDDY W.A.No:1041/2023 Between: The Ap State Waqf Board ...APPELLANT AND Sk Mohammed Ibrahim and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1.SHAIKKHAJA BASRA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.K RATRANGA PANI REDDY 2.GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS (AP) 3 RRR, J& JS, J WANos.1013, 1037, 1041, 1042 & 1063 of 2023 0 W.A.No:1042/2023 is/ Between: The Ap State Wakf Board ...APPELLANT AND M/s Kausalya Management Services And Structures Pvt ...RESPONDENT(S) Ltd and Others Counsel for the Appellant: 1.SHAIKKHAJA BASHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE 2.GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS (AP) 3. GRAMA GOPAL W.A.No:1063/2023 V" Between: The Ap State Waqf Board ...APPELLANT AND Shaik Shamshunnisa Begum and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1.SHAIK KHAJA BASHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE 2. 4 RRR, J & JS, J W.A.Nos.1013, 1037, 1041, 1042 & 1063 of 2023 The Court made the following Common Judgment: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) As all these appeals raise the same issues of fact and relate to the same extent of land, they are being disposed of by way of this common order. 2. Heard Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Shaik Khaja Basha, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri K. Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents. 3. The private respondents herein claim title and ownership over various extents of land in Sy.No.320 of Parimala Nagar, Kallur Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. The private respondents claim ownership, by way of deeds of transfer. The cause of action for the private respondents to approach this court was refusal of the registration authorities, in registering the documents of transfer of title, on the ground that the Wakf Board had addressed a letter, dated 16.11.2016, restraining the registration authorities from registering any documents in relation to this land on the ground that it is wakf property. Apart from the private respondents, various other persons, who 4. had purchased land in Sy.No.320, had also sought registration of their documents of transfer. Upon such transfer being refused on the same ground. W.P.No.1340 of 2020 came to be filed before this Court by one such affected person. 1 5 RRR, J & JS, J W.A.Nos,1013, 1037, 1041, 1042 & 1063 of 2023 The contention of the petitioner in W.P.No.1340 of 2020 was that the Wakf Board had filed O.S.No.27 of 1969 before the Additional Subordinate Judge, Kurnool, for recovery of the land in Sy.No.320 from the occupants of the said land and the same came to be dismissed on 26.02.1970. It is contended that the trial Court had dismissed the suit on the ground that the lands were sold to the occupants or to their predecessors beginning from 1940 and that the land had been handed over by way of a lease deed in the year 1915. The trial Court took the view that in view of the passage of time, the suit was barred by limitation. Apart from this, the trial Court also took the view that nothing was placed on record before the trial Court to show who had dedicated the property as wakf property. This judgment has become final as the appellant herein could not show any appeal being filed against this judgment. 5. Apart from the above litigation, W.P.No.9228 of 2013 had been filed assailing the claim of the Wakf Board over the land in Sy.No.317 and 320 and the refusal of the Sub-Registrar to register the documents in relation to this land. This writ petition also came to be allowed on 28.03.2013 holding that the Wakf Board cannot assert any right over the land in Sy.Nos.317 and 320. 6. 7. The Wakf Board had filed a counter affidavit, in W.P.No.1340 of 2020. In this counter, it was stated that the land had been notified under the provisions of the Wakf Act, 1995 and consequently transfer of such land is prohibited under Section 51 of the Wakf Act, 1995. The Wakf Board also took 6 RRR, J & JS, J W.A.Nos.1013, 1037, 1041, 1042 & 1063 of 2023 the stand that the transfer of such land is automatically prohibited under Section 22-A (1)(c) of the Wakf Act, 1995 and that the petitioner therein had an alternative remedy of approaching the appropriate authority, as directed by a Full Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.,V 8. The learned Single Judge, after considering these contentions. had held that the claim of the Wakf Board over the land stood rejected in view of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.27 of 1969, dated 26.02.1970 and the orders of this Court in W.P.No.9228 of 2013 dated 28.03.2013. On this basis, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition directing the registration authorities to receive and process the documents presented by the petitioner therein for registration of the house plots in Sy.No.320. The private respondents herein, approached this Court by way of 9. various writ petitions, seeking the same relief, on the basis of the earlier order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.1340 of 2020 dated 05.01.2021. These writ petitions were allowed on the basis of the earlier judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.1340 of 2020. Aggrieved by these orders, the appellant has approached this 10. Court by way of the present set of writ appeals. The details of the writ petitions and the consequential writ appeals are given herein below: 2916 (2) AID 236 (FB) 7 RRR, J & JS, J W.A.Nos.1013, 1037, 1041, 1042 & 1063 of 2023 Name of the writ petitioner Writ Petition No. Writ Appeal No. Madem Maha Lakshmi W.P.No.11831/2021 W.A.No. 1013/2023 T. Rama Murthy W.P. No. 11950/2021 W.A.No. 1037/2023 1. Shaik Mohammad Ibhrahim 2. Shaik Mohammad Khasim 3. Shaik Mahaboob Bhasha W.P. No. 30564/2022 W.A.No.1041/2023 1. M/s. Kausalya Management Services and Structures Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Director Sri Dugyala Ravinder Rao 2. Y. Surendra Reddy 3. Y. Kiran Kumar Reddy 4. M. Chandra Sekhar Reddy 5. D. Sankara Reddy 6. Chennareddigari Naga Jyothi 7. Chennareddigari Naga Bhushana Reddy W.P. No. 18796/2021 W.A.No. 1042/2023 Shaik Shamshunnisa Begum W.P.No.5190/2021 W.A.No. 1063/2023 Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 11. appellant would draw the attention of this Court to the Gazette Notification dated 24.10.1963 and the report of the Survey Comnnissioner dated 15.04.1956 and the Gazette Notification dated 06.03.1969. The learned Senior Counsel would contend that the report of the Survey Commissioner, under the Wakf Act, 1954 would show that an extent of 19.62 cents in Sy.No.320 had been declared as wakf property on the basis of title deed No.3619, issued by the Inam Commissioner. Initially a notification was issued on 24.10,196,3 wherein the land claimed by the wakf institution was omitted by RRR, J & JS, J W.A.Nos.1013, 1037, 1041, 1042 & 1063 of 2023 inadvertence and an errata was subsequently published on 06.03.1963 declaring that Ac. 19.62 cents of land in Sy.No.320is wakf land. The learned Senior Counsel would contend that once such a declaration has been given and notified, the land in question would vest with the Wakf Board and would have to be treated as wakf land. He would further submit that the repeal of the Wakf Act, 1954 by way of the Wakf Act, 1995 would make no difference in as much as the provisions of the Wakf Act, 1995 would continue to apply to this property. The learned Senior Counsel would also contend that the earlier orders of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.1340 of 2020 is the subject matter of an appeal before this Court. He would submit that subsequent orders passed by this Court, on the basis of the judgment in W.P.No.1340 of 2020 would have to be considered in the light of the decision of this Court in the writ appeal filed against the order in W.P.No.1340 of 2020. Sri K. Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents would contend that the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.1340 of 2020 and the earlier decision of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Kurnool in O.S.No.27 of 1969, had become final and as such, the claim of the Wakf Board on this land is now barred. He would contend that the present amendment to the Wakf Act wherein the bar of limitation has been introduced, would aid the contention of the private respondents that the Wakf Board cannot make any further claims on this land. The learned counsel for 12. 13. 9 RRR, J & JS, J WANos.1013, 1037, 1041, 1042 & 1063 of 2023 would further contend that the notification in the the private respondents Gazette has now become irrelevant on account of the judgment of the Civil Court in O.S.No.27 of 1969. The question of applicability of the judgment of the Full Bench in Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., would arise only when there is a finding that the land is Wakf land on which the Wakf Board had continue to have control. The Wakf Board had moved O.S.No.27 of of this land from the occupants. This suit got dismissed on 14. 1969 for recovery two grounds. Firstly, on the ground that the details of endowment were unavailable and secondly on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation, in as much as, the possession of the land had been handed over in the year 1915 by way of a lease, and the Wakf Board was unable to state as to when of the land, which was adverse to the title the occupants obtained possession of the Wakf Board. The civil Court also took the view that there were 1940 onwards and transactions in relation to the land from the year consequently, the Wakf Board could not seek recovery of the land. The first leg of the judgment of the civil Court may not survive in of the notifications and the report of the Surveyor, of the Civil Court, that the suit itself was barred by that the land in question cannot be 15. view of the production However, the finding limitation in 1970 itself, would mean Wakf Board at this stage. In the absence of such ability to the question of keeping the land in such a limbo wherein recovered by the recover the land. 10 RRR, J & JS, J W.A.Nos.1013, 1037. 1041, 1042 & 1063 of 2023 persons can remain in occupation but cannot transfer the iand would only give rise to further complications. Even otherwise, the order of the civil Court in bars the Wakf Board from making any claim over the land. O.S.No.27 of 1969 In such circumstances, the view of the learned Single Judge in 16. W.P.No.1340 of 2020 cannot be rejected. In any event, the learned Single Judge, while passing orders in W.P.No.1340 of 2020, had noted the fact that had already obtained such orders in W.P.No.9228 to have become final as the similarly situated persons of 2013, dated 28.03.2013. This order appears reversal of this order. In such circumstances. appellants could not show any nothing further survives in these writ appeals. Accordingly, these writ appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. 17. Sd/- V.DIWAKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to Sri Shaik Khaja Basha, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri G Rama Gopal, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri K Rathanga Pani Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 5. Two CCs to GP for Registration & Stamps, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 6. Two CD Copies 4. RAM 10 HIGH COURT DATE0:23/07/2025 COMMON JUDGMENT WRIT APPEAL Nos:1013, 1037, 1041, 1042 & 1063 of 2023 I 0 5 AUG 2m Current Section . DISMISSING ALL THE WA’s WITHOUT COSTS V-