HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT WRIT PETITION No.7092 OF 2003 ORDER:
The petitioners pray for Mandamus declaring proceedings in R.C.G.B.No.2282/2002 dated 17.08.2002 of 1st respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, void and violative of principles of natural justice and the petitioners further pray for a direction to the 2nd respondent to register the sale deeds in respect of agricultural land covered by Survey No.133 in an extent of Ac.16-15 cents, Mamidalapadu Village, Stantapuram Gram Panchayat, Kurnool (Tq. & District). Through the impugned proceeding, the 1st respondent issued instructions to 2nd respondent not to allow any document for registration pertaining to the survey numbers covered by the proceedings dated 17.08.2002. The subject matter of the writ petition is confined to survey No.133 in extent of Ac.14.14 cents, Mamidalapadu Village.
The circumstances concerned with the subject matter of the writ petition are referred to.
The petitioners claim to have purchased through registered sale deeds dated 06.04.1984 and 28.03.1984 from Y.Pullamma a part of petition land. On 07.07.1970, the vendor of petitioners through registered document purchased from one Rasool Bi who was recognised as owner and possessor of Survey No.133. The petitioners refer to acquisition of small extents from different persons through sale deeds between 19.09.1984 and 22.09.1984. The issue in the writ petition is not with regard to the legality of proceedings dated 17.08.2002 and having regard to the nature of prayer the circumstances relevant for the disposal of the writ petition are adverted in the order.
The Wakf Board, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad represented by the Regional Officer, Ananthapur, filed O.S. No.50 of 1969 in the Court of Additional Sub Judge, Kurnool, for the relief of recovery of possession of plaint schedule properties from the defendants therein. It is the case of the petitioners that the predecessors-in- interest of their vendors were arrayed as defendants in the suit. Item No.4 of suit schedule relates to Survey No.133 in an extent of Ac.16-15 cents at Mamidalapadu Village. The defendants filed written statement inter alia contending that all the plaint schedule properties were not wakf properties and that the gazette on which the plaintiff in the suit is relying upon is unenforceable etc. The trial Court framed the following issues for consideration.
i. Whether the suit properties are wakf?
ii. Whether plaintiff has title to and possession within 12 years prior to suit?
iii. Whether the defendants have perfected their title by adverse possession?
iv. Whether the sixth defendant is an unnecessary party to the suit?
v. Whether suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties and cause of action?
vi. To what relief, plaintiff entitled to?
The parties to the suit adduced oral and documentary evidence. Exs. A.4 and A.5 - A. P. Gazettes on which strong reliance was placed by the plaintiff in the suit. The defendants therein exhibited Exs.B.1 to B.7- registered documents covering plaint schedule properties from 1919 till 1964. The learned trial Judge has recorded the following findings:
“But Ex.A-3 does not show that these properties were endowed to the Yahoo., mosque as alleged by the plaintiff. Simply the mosque is notified in Ex.A.3. Therefore, it is very difficult to come to the conclusion that these particular items were endowed or given in grant to the said mosque. No doubt in some of the documents produced by the defendants there is mention of Inam dry, but this also does not establish the title of the plaintiff. Hence, issue No.1 was found accordingly.
As against this evidence PW.1 has stated that there is no documentary or oral evidence to show that the plaintiff was in possession from 1930 onwards. DW.1 has also deposed that the Government acquired a portion of these survey numbers and the compensation was deposited in court and paid in them in O.P.No.25/67 on the file of the Addl. District Court, Kurnool.”
It is suffice to note that the decree and the judgment have become final.
On 25.11.1985, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kurnool, entered the names of I. Venkata Ramana and others against Survey No.133/3 of Mamidalapadu Village. One Syed Masoom Peer Mutawalli of Yahoo Masjid, Kurnool assailed the mutation in favour of I. Venkata Ramana and others in case No. D.Dis. No.237/87. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool through order dated 15.09.1990 dismissed the revision filed by the Mutawalli. Writ petition No.3923 of 1991 was filed assailing the order of Revenue Divisional Officer dated 15.09.1990 and this Court through order dated 14.07.1999 dismissed the writ petition. Briefly noted, this Court has taken note of the findings in O.S. No.50 of 1969 and the documents on which the private parties are claiming right and title to the property. The said order has also become final. While matter stood thus, it appears from the record that the 3rd respondent on 22..07.2002 forwarded details of wakf lands in Kurnool District. By reference to the letter dated 22.07.2002, the 1st respondent issued following instructions:
“During the review meeting held on 20.7.2002 it is brought to notice by the Muslim Service Society that the Sub-Registrar’s in the District are registering the properties on the basis of lay-out or plot Nos., without mentioning the Survey Numbers. In view of the above situation it has become very difficult to identify the un-authorised encroachments so made by the public over the Wakf properties by the Revenue or Municipal authorities in the absence of Specific survey numbers.
It is therefore ordered that all registrations should be necessarily made only mentioning the Survey Numbers irrespective of the property i.e., Land/House/Structure/open site by the Sub- Registrars in future. Any deviation in this regard will be reviewed very seriously. All Sub- Registrars in the District are requested to put an end to the procedure of registering the lands/Houses/with layout or Flat Nos.
The following Survey Nos. of Kurnool District are the Wakf Properties as represented by the Muslim Service Society, Kurnool. The other survey Nos. of Wakf properties in Kurnool District will be furnished soon.
Sy.No.133 Ac.14.14 cts. Mamidalapadu vg.
Sy.Nos.253, 255, 259 & 262,151 and other total areas of 109.99 Acres land of Munagalapad, Mamidalapadu and Gondiparla Villages.
The Sub-Registrar, Kurnool is directed not allow any registration pertaining to the above Survey Numbers hereafter.
The receipt of this order should be acknowledged by return of post.”
Hence, the writ petition assailing the proceedings dated 17.08.2002.
The 1st respondent filed counter affidavit and also additional counter affidavit.
The 2nd respondent independently filed counter affidavit.
The 1st respondent through counter affidavit justified the issuance of impugned proceedings dated 17.08.2002. It is stated that through G.O. Ms. No.374 Revenue (SER-I) Department dated 25.062002, the Government constituted a Task Force Committee at the district level with senior officers to strength and enforce the existing arrangements to protect the wakf lands in the State.
The 1st respondent is the Chairman. In discharge of his duties as Chairman of the Committee periodical meetings are conducted and in the meeting held on 20.07.2002, the 3rd respondent brought to the notice of 1st respondent the list of wakf properties which are being neglected and the justification offered is having regard to the representation and his authority as Chairman of the Task Force Committee, the impugned proceeding is issued. Adverting to the merits of subject matter of writ petition, the 1st respondent states that as per R.S.R. of Mamidalapadu Village, the land in Survey No.133, an extent of Ac.14-15 cents is an Inam land granted for the service of Masjid. The same was registered as wakf and published in the A.P. Gazette dated 24.10.1963 at Serial No. 3069. Therefore, it is stated that the issuance of impugned proceeding is in conformity with the record. The 1st respondent has not adverted to the lis decided by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool in O.S.No.50 of 1969 and mutation effected by Mandal Revenue Officer, Kurnool as confirmed by this Court in writ petition No.3923 of 1991, the 1st respondent was given an opportunity to file additional counter affidavit if so advised.
The 1st respondent filed additional counter affidavit as follows:
“ I submit that, this Respondent filed a counter affidavit in the above Writ Petition on 13.10.2014, but this respondent has not stated in respect of civil suit and earlier Writ Petition. This Hon’ble Court on 18.10.2014 has directed this Respondent to file additional counter affidavit specifically stating why the impugned orders are passed in spite of subsisting of the orders against the Wakf Board. Therefore, I submit my additional counter as under:
I submit that, neither in the suit nor in the Writ petition, the District Collector, Kurnool is not a party. I further submit that, it may not have been brought to the notice of the then District Collector with regard to the subsistence of the decree passed against the Wakf Board before issuance of the impugned orders dated 7-8-2002 in Proceedings Rc E8/2262/2002 prohibiting the registrations of Wakf lands including the subject land. I submit that only to protect the Wakf properties and after duly verification of the revenue records, i.e., R.S.R. and A.P. Gazette, darted 24.10.1963 the said impugned orders were passed.
It is submitted that this respondent has great respect and obedience to the orders of this Hon’ble Court. The proceedings of the then District Collector would have been issued without having knowledge of the subsistence of the order against the Wakf Board.”
The 3rd respondent has not filed counter affidavit.
Now the point for decision is whether the 1st respondent has jurisdiction to issue the impugned proceeding and what is the effect of adjudication in O.S.No.50 of 1969 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool.
The circumstances stated by the petitioners are not in dispute, issue narrows down to the effect of adjudication by the competent Court.
Through the impugned proceedings, the 1st respondent directed the 2nd respondent not to entertain documents for registration covering survey numbers described in the impugned proceedings as in his opinion the properties are wakf properties. From the material available on record and also the stand taken by the 1st respondent through additional counter affidavit, it is evident that the 1st respondent was oblivious to the decree and judgement in O.S. No.50 of 1969 in the Court of Additional Sub Judge, Kurnool. The 1st respondent was also unaware of mutation of names of 3rd parties in the year 1985 and the confirming order dated 15.09.1990 of the Revenue Divisional Officer. Before the Revenue Divisional Officer, for all purposes, the adjudication by the civil Court in O.S.No.50 of 1969 is taken note and the names of private persons are mutated in the revenue records. Once the civil Court declares that Survey Nos.133 of Mamidalapadu does not belonging to wakf and the Wakf Board has allowed the said decree and judgment to become final, on representation/details given by the 3rd respondent, the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction to reverse the effect of adjudication, direct the 2nd respondent to treat the petition schedule land as property belonging to wakf property and refrain 2nd respondent from entertaining documents for registration. Succinctly stated, the mode and manner of exercising the jurisdiction or issuing the impugned proceedings is firstly without jurisdiction and secondly not in conformity with the judgment and decree in O.S. No.50 of 1969 in the Court of Additional Subordinate Judge, Kurnool. The impugned proceedings insofar as Survey No.133 in an extent of Ac.14.14 cents are set aside and the 2nd respondent is directed to admit the documents for registration in respect of survey No.133 in an extent of Ac.14.14 cents of Mamidalapadu as and when presented by the petitioners. It is made clear that through impugned proceeding dated 17.08.2002, the 1st respondent refers to various other properties of the Wakf Board in Kurnool district. This Court is not examining the merits or expressing any view as regards other properties are concerned. However, it is for the 2nd respondent to take note of these aspects within the four corners of Section 22 (A) of the Registration Act insofar as the other properties are concerned. Before concluding the writ petition, this Court is required to take note of submission of learned Government Pleader that this Court disposed of writ petition No.10777 of 2004 by leaving it open to the respondents to act in accordance with Section 22(A) of the Registration Act. I have perused the circumstances leading to the filing of writ petition No.10777 of 2004 and the distinct circumstances set out in the present writ petition. In the case on hand having regard to earlier adjudication effecting mutation and confirmation by this Court in writ petition No.3923 of 1991, the legality of proceedings insofar as Survey No.133 in an extent of Ac.14.14 cents is considered and appropriate orders passed.
The writ petition is allowed as indicated above. No order as to costs.
S.V. BHATT, J Date: 07.11.2014 Stp