APHC010039852020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 744 of 2021 Bench Sr.No:-11 [3552] The Ap State of Wakf Board ...Appellant Vs. Poondla Sivakumar Reddy and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Appellant: Mr.SHAIK KHAJA BASHA Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): GP FOR REVENUE, Mr.JANARDHANA REDDY PONAKA, Mr.SK KARIMULLA(SC FOR MINORITY F C) CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 23rd December 2025 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan) This writ appeal is preferred against order dated 31.12.2019 in W.P. No.21151 of 2019, by which learned Single Judge issued directions to the 5th respondent therein/writ appellant to delete the lands to an extent of Acres 18.04 cents covered by Survey Nos.480/1, 480/2, 532/3 (old survey No.1576/995), 537/1, 542, 536 and 619 situated at Nellore Municipal Area, from the prohibited list within a period of four weeks thereof. 2 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. No.744 of 2021 2. (a) Respondents 1 to 17 herein preferred writ petition questioning the action of appellant herein in not deleting the lands to an extent of Acres 18.04 cents, as mentioned above, from the prohibited list, despite the said lands already being declared to be not belong to Wakf Board by this Court in A.S. Nos.504 and 1353 of 1996 and A.S. Nos.1228 and 1240 of 1997 and A.S. No.171 of 1998, by decree and judgment dated 31.08.2007, which got confirmed by Hon’ble Apex Court in S.L.P. Nos.5580-5584/2008 and 19755-19759/2008, vide order dated 05.01.2016, to be illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. (b) They claimed to be original owners and possessors of aforesaid lands having acquired under various registered sale deeds. That there was a civil suit in O.S. No.63 of 1976 instituted on the file of learned Subordinate Judge, Nellore, which was preferred by A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad, appellant herein, seeking decree for delivery of possession, which came to be allowed. However, in A.S. Nos.504 and 1353 of 1996 and A.S. Nos.1228 and 1240 of 1997 and A.S. No.171 of 1998, by judgment and decree dated 31.08.2007, this Court has reversed the decree and judgment passed by the Civil Court and 3 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. No.744 of 2021 eventually, the matter was carried in appeal to Hon’ble Apex Court. (c) In S.L.P. Nos.5580-5584/2008 and 19755-19759/2008, by order dated 05.01.2016, the appeals came to be dismissed, confirming the judgment in appeal suits. Despite the same, the subject lands have been shown in prohibited list at the instance of Wakf Board, in view of Section 22(A)(1)(c) of Registration Act, 1908. In that context, the writ petition came to be instituted seeking for direction to delete the subject lands from the prohibited list, enabling the writ petitioners to deal with the property as they were rightful owners. (d) Before the learned Single Judge, writ petitioners claimed that though an application was made to the District Collector, who in turn addressed letter to the 5th respondent – Executive Officer, Wakf Board, requesting to make necessary modifications, instead of considering such request, the properties continued to be shown in the prohibited list, despite the judgment and decree passed by this Court in A.S. Nos.504 and 1353 of 1996 and A.S. Nos.1228 and 1240 of 1997 and A.S. No.171 of 1998, which ultimately held that the subject property does not belong to the 4 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. No.744 of 2021 Wakf Board. Considering the same, the learned Single Judge directed the Wakf Board to delete the subject lands from prohibited list within a period of four weeks and accordingly, disposed of the writ petition. 3. Heard Mr.P.Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, representing on behalf of Mr.Shaik Khaja Basha, learned counsel for appellant on record and Mr.Janardhan Reddy Ponnaka, learned counsel for respondents. 4. Learned Senior Counsel contended that learned Single Judge, without even considering the submissions of counsel for Wakf Board, disposed of the writ petition on the premise that subject property is a private property and that the same does not belong to Wakf Board, which is clearly contrary to the material on record. He further contended that the suit that was instituted initially was merely for recovery of possession but not one for declaration of title, therefore, when there is no declaration as such made deciding the title to the property, the writ petitioners cannot claim subject property to be a private property and not that of Wakf Board, hence, learned Single Judge ought to have relegated the parties to work out remedies before appropriate civil 5 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. No.744 of 2021 court, however, erroneously directed the appellant to remove the subject lands from the prohibited list, which is clearly perverse. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 17, while supporting the orders of learned Single Judge, contended that the subject property has already been declared to be not belonging to Wakf Board and the findings rendered to that extent by this Court in the decree and judgment dated 31.08.2007 passed in A.S. Nos.504 and 1353 of 1996 and A.S. Nos.1228 and 1240 of 1997 and A.S. No.171 of 1998 stood confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Therefore, the said issue cannot be reagitated again. He further contended that once the subject properties are declared by competent courts to be a private property, the Wakf Board has no right to claim the same and insist to continue them to be figuring in the prohibited list maintained under Section 22A(1)(c) of Registration Act, therefore, learned Single Judge was right in directing 5th respondent to take steps for removing the subject lands from prohibited list. 6. We have considered the submissions of both learned counsels and perused the record. 6 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. No.744 of 2021 7. It is not in dispute that the subject property was also subject matter in O.S. No.63 of 1976, on the file of learned Subordinate Judge, Nellore, which came to be instituted by predecessors of the appellant for possession. The suit initially came to be decreed by judgment dated 21.05.1993. Against which, the defendants therein preferred different appeals vide A.S. Nos.504 and 1353 of 1996 and A.S. Nos.1228 and 1240 of 1997 and A.S. No.171 of 1998. All these appeals came to be disposed of by common judgment dated 31.08.2007. In the said judgment, this Court has rendered following findings: “42. Coming to the facts, admittedly the land in question was alienated by way of settlement by the service holder by name Nizam Shereef in 1928. It was granted to him for performing services at the mosque. At the cost of repetition, it may be stated that it was not directly dedicated to the mosque. Therefore, as per the definition of Public Wakf, the suit land being a service land, cannot be treated to be a public wakf. Later, pursuant to the settlement deed Ex.B.19 dated 29-1-1928, they alienated the properties to the defendants under Exa.B.14 lease deed dated 1-12-1939, B.20 lease deed dated 11-4-1953, B.2 sale deed dated 11-7-1957 etc. The Honourable Supreme Court in Wakf Board Andhra Pradesh (supra 13) has categorically held that the suit property is even if a wakf as 7 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. No.744 of 2021 per Wakf Act, 1954 is not within the sweep of the definition of public wakf, as per the extension Act wherein service grants are not treated to be public wakf. Evidently, the board came into existence on 4-3-1961 in the state of A.P. The suit was filed on 31-12-1975. Necessarily, twelve years period has to be counted from 4-3-1961. The nature of the suit must be such that plaintiff therein must seek to recover possession of the property alienated by the previous inamdar. I may state herein that Nizam Shereef never managed the mosque. His alienation was on 29-1-1928, it cannot be said to be alienation by the previous manager of the mosque. Article 96 of the Limitation Act cannot be of any assistance, since the alienation was made by the inamdar, who cannot be said to be a manager. Neither Article 134 B of the old Act nor 96 of the Limitation Act is of any avail. 43. Recoursing to the above decision of the Supreme Court, which equally applies to the facts of the present case, it can be said that Section 66-D to Section 66-H were brought on the statute of the wakf Act, 1954 by amending Act 69 of 1984. Since the suit was filed on 31-12-1975, the said provision was not available to the respondent for getting the extension period of limitation. Legislation cannot revive the limitation period. In other words, subsequent amendment in 1984 cannot revive the suits that were barred by limitation. The Judgment of the trial Court that it was a wakf property, and that Article 94 of the Limitation 8 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. No.744 of 2021 Act would apply, cannot be upheld by virtue of the decision Wakf Board Andhra Pradesh (Supra 13), which equally applies in all fours to the facts of the present case. The defendants cannot be said to be in unauthorized possession. They have purchased the property from the legal representatives of the service inamdars. At no time, the wakf board claimed the property. Though the board was constituted in 1961, till 1975, it did not choose to take any action. Naturally twelve years period of limitation should be reckoned from 4-3-1961. Since the suit was not within limitation, it was barred by limitation. Consequently, the appeals are liable to be allowed.” (emphasis supplied) 8. As against aforesaid judgment and decree, one Mr.Saleem Ur Rahman, claiming to be Mutawalli, preferred SLP Nos.5580- 5584/2008 and 19748-19752/2008, so also certain persons who are not parties to the suit but claiming to be religious functionaries of Mosque also preferred SLP Nos.19755-19759/2008. All these appeals came to be dismissed. It is significant to note that Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board chose not to file any appeal and even the said aspect has been duly taken note by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The relevant portion reads thus: “In such a situation, the only person who could be understood to be aggrieved, if at all, by the impugned 9 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. No.744 of 2021 order of the High Court insofar as the merits are concerned would be the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board which has chosen not to institute any of the High Court. As the legal representative (s) of the deceased petitioner do not presently have any right to prosecute the special leave petitions following the death of the petitioner, Md. Saleem- ur-Rahman, we hold that the proceedings in the Special Leave Petition Nos.5580-5584 of 2008 and the connected SLP (C) Nos.19748-19752 of 2008 must come to an end. We, accordingly, close the aforesaid two sets of special leave petitions in terms of the present order.” 9. In sum and substance, the findings rendered by this Court that the subject property does not belong to Wakf Board have attained finality. For whatever reason, the appellant chose not to challenge the findings recorded in the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2007 and the same stare at it. Therefore, as rightly contended by learned counsel for respondents, in the teeth of the said findings and conclusion, the appellant still cannot maintain that it is the rightful owner of the subject property and therefore, entitled to continue to figure these properties in the prohibited list. 10. Though learned Single Judge has not explained in detail the intervening circumstances leading to the culmination of issuing directions to the appellant for deletion of subject lands 10 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. No.744 of 2021 from prohibited list, in view of our aforesaid observations, we are of the opinion that the conclusion arrived at by learned Single Judge can neither be said to erroneous nor be found fault with. 11. In Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others1, Full Bench of this Court, while summarizing the conclusions, issued various directions. One of the directions envisaged that if a particular property has been placed in the list of prohibited list, the aggrieved person was at liberty to apply for its deletion from the list and seek modification thereof and on such application being made, the concerned authorities to act accordingly and pass appropriate orders. It is stated that such application was made before the Collector, who is competent in that regard and the Collector, in turn, has forwarded the same to the Wakf Board seeking for comments, which obviously has not responded, as it was asserting title to the subject property. 12. In that view of the matter, the directions of learned Single Judge to the Wakf Board to take necessary steps for deletion of subject property from prohibited list do not warrant any 1 2016 (2) ALD 236 (FB) 11 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. No.744 of 2021 interference. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending in this case, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J ss