The Ap State Waqf Board Vs Akula Venkata Ramana

Petition under Section ISflsPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the judgment passed in WP.^{No.1277/2020,dated} 13.02.2020 by the Learned single Judge pending disposal of the Writ Appeal^

¶28

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SHAIK KHAJA BASHA

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI I.SURYANARAYANA-^

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 5: GP FOR STAMPS^AND

¶31

REGISTRATION

¶32

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 & 7:—

¶33

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶34

APHC010179312021

¶35

[3541]

¶36

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶37

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶38

MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY

¶39

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶40

PRESENT

¶41

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶42

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM

¶43

WRIT APPEAL NO: 913/2021

¶44

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent by^{theorderdated} 13.02.2020 passed in WP. No. 1277/2020

¶45

Between:

¶46

1.THE AP STATE WAQF BOARD, REP BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 4TH FLOOR, IMDAD GHAR, K. R. MARKET, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT

¶47

...APPELLANT

¶48

AND

¶49

1.AKULA VENKATA RAMANA, S/0 SESHA RAO, AGED 42 YEARS, OCC . LORRY BROKER R/0 D.NO.2-101, TIMMAPURAM, KAKINADA RURAL MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶50

2.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (STAMPS AND REGISTRATION), VELAGAPU Dl, AMARAVATHI

¶51

3.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT KAKINADA.

¶52

4.THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT

¶53

5.THE SUBREGISTRAR, PITHAPURARN, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶54

6.VAMISETTI YESU GOPALA KRISHNA, S/0 LATE APPARAO,^AGE50 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/0 D.NO.1-49, KUMARAPURAM,

¶55

2

¶56

RRRJ & JS,J W.A.No.913of2021

¶57

PITHAPURAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVAI DISTRICT

¶58

7.VAMISETTI THAMMESWARA RAO, S/0 LATE APPA RAO, AGE⁴² YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, R/0 D.NO.1-49, KUMARAPURAM, PITHAPURAM,MANDAL, EAST GODAVAI DISTRICT

¶59

...RESPONDENT{S):

¶60

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶61

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 condone the delay of 190 days in Representation the above WA.SR. No. /2021 in the interest of justice, as otherwise petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and hardship and pass.

¶62

lA NO: 2 OF 2021

¶63

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 dispense with the filing of certified copy of the order dated 13.02.2020 in WP. No. 1277/2020 in the interest of justice and pass.

¶64

lA NO: 3 OF 2021

¶65

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 leave to the appellant herein to file Writ Appeal before the Honourable Division Bench in the interest of justice and pass. lA NO: 4 OF 2021 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 condone the delay of 02 days in filing the Writ appeal, against the orders passed in WP. No. 1277/2020, dated 13.02.2020 passed by the Learned Single Judge and pass.

¶66

lA NO: 5 OF 2021

¶67

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 suspend the operation of the judgment passed in WP. No. 1277/2020, dated 13.02.2020 by the Learned single Judge pending disposal of the Writ Appeal and pass.

¶68

3

¶69

RRR,J & JS,J W.A.No.913 of 2021

¶70

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶71

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to grant leave to the petitioner herein /respondent No.5 in the WA.No.913 of 2021 to file counter affidavit in the above writ appeal and pass

¶72

lA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶73

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to grant leave to the Counter affidavit in Writ appeal No.913 of 2021 and pass

¶74

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶75

1.SHAIK KHAJA BASHA

¶76

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶77

1.INAPURAPU SURYANARAYANA

¶78

2.GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS (AP)

¶79

4

¶80

RRRJ & JS,J W.A.No.913 of 2021

¶81

The Court made the following Judgment: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

¶82

The respondent herein, had purchased Ac.0.93 cents^oflandoutof Ac.7.44 cents of land, in Sy.No.171, Kumarapuram Village^{ofEastGodavari} District in a Court Sale conducted by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, in E.P.No.4 of 2017, in O.S.No.109 of 2015.^{Thesuititselfcame} to be filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.8,23,300/- from two persons namely respondents 6 & 7 herein. The aforesaid property,^whichhadbeen mortgaged for due repayment of the loan, came to be^{soldafterthesuitwas} decreed and the decree holder had initiated execution petition for sale of the property for recovery of the decretal amount.

¶83

After the sale process had been completed, the learned^Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, had issued a sale certificate. This^{salecertificate,dated} 07.09.2018, was presented before the 5^'" respondent - Sub Registrar for registration. However, the Sub Registrar, by a letter, dated 18.12.2018, refused to register the said documents, on the ground that, the Chief Executive Officer, Waqf Board, had addressed a letter, dated 29.03.2016, setting out the details of the Waqf properties, which cannot be registered under Section 22 (1) (c) of the Registration Act, 1908 and that the property which was the subject matter of the sale certificate was part of Ac.7.44 cents of land, which had been declared to be Waqf Property under the provisions of the Section 5 of the Waqf Act, 1954.

¶84

5

¶85

RRR,J & JS,J W.A.No.913 of 2021

¶86

Aggrieved by the said order of rejection, the 1®* respondent approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.1277 of 2020. This Writ Petition came to be disposed of, by a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court, dated 13.02.2020. In the said judgment, the learned Single Judge, took the view that the property in question had not been notified under the Waqf Act and a communication by the Chief Executive Officer of the Waqf Board would not be sufficient to reject registration of the sale certificate. Consequently, the learned Single Judge, had disposed of the Writ Petition, with a direction to the Sub Registrar to register the said sale certificate.

¶87

Aggrieved by this Order, the Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Appeal^withleave.

¶88

The contention of Sri Shaik Khaja Basha, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for Wakf Board is that, the proper documents had not been placed before the learned Single Judge. He would submit that the land in question had been notified in the Gazette, dated 19.04.1962, as Waqf land. The learned Standing Counsel, would also submit that, in such circumstances, the land in question would fall within the ambit of Section 22-A (1) (c) of the Registration Act, 1908. He would also draw the attention of this Court to the judgment of the Full Bench of the erstwhile High Court at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh reported as Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others\ The Full Bench, had held

¶89

'2016(2)ALD 236(FB)

¶90

6

¶91

RRR,J <§ JS,J W.A.No.913of2021

¶92

that, no notification is necessary to bring into effect the provisions of Section 22-A, prohibiting the registration of the transfer documents relating to Waqf properties and that a mere information given to the Registering Authorities about the details of the Waqf properties would suffice for an application of Section 22-A provisions. In such circumstances, he^{wouldalsosubmitthat} the Orders of the learned Single Judge to the extent of directing registration of the sale certificate would have to be set aside.

¶93

Sri Inapurapu Suryanarayana, the learned counsel appearing^forthe 1 St respondent would contend that, the Waqf Board in view^{oftheamendmentto} the Waqf Act, and more particularly Section 107 of the Waqf Act by virtue of the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025, cannot press the present Writ Appeal as the same would be barred by limitation. The learned counsel^{wouldalsocontend} that the property in question has been the subject matter of various private sale deeds between the private parties claiming ownership^{overthislandand} such documentation is more than 30 years prior to the sale certificate being issued, on 07.09.2018. He would submit that, in the absence of any objection or complaint by the Waqf Board or Waqf Institution for more than 30 years, there cannot be any claim by the Waqf Board in this regard.

¶94

A perusal of the material placed before us shows that the property in question, which is part of Ac.7.44 cents in Sy.No.171, Kumarapuram Village of East Godavari District was notified under Section 5 of the Waqf Act, 1954 way back in 19.04.1962. Once such a notification is issued, the property would

¶95

7

¶96

RRR,J&JS,J W.A.No.913of2021

¶97

have to be Waqf property unless it is denotified in an appropriate proceeding. Consequently, the property in question would fall within the ambit under Section 22-A (1) (c) of the Registration Act, 1908. However, the Full Bench in the case of Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary Vs. State of Andhra^Pradesh and others, while holding that such properties need not be notified again, for the purpose of applying the provisions of Section 22-A, had held that it would still be open to the affected parties to seek deletion of the property from the prohibited list. The Full Bench had also set out the procedure under which such a step can be taken.

¶98

In these circumstances, the learned Single Judge’s Order requires to be set aside. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent^wouldalso submit that, the sales certificate has been registered pursuant to the Orders of the learned Single Judge. In such circumstances, it^{wouldhavetobeheldthat} the said registration of the sales certificate shall remain suspended unless the property is released from the prohibitory list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 as far as the effect of the Waqf Amendment Act, 1925 is concerned. It may not be appropriate for this Court to take any view as to whether the amendments to the provisions of the Wakf Act are prospective or retrospective in operation as it would be best left open for determination in a more appropriate case.

¶99