A common judgment disposed of numerous Writ Appeals preferred by the Telangana State Wakf Board against a single judge order. The Court held that the single judge orders allowing writ petitions and setting aside the impugned notifications were correct in view of final judgments in previous appeals, distinguishing between batch cases.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY
WRIT APPEAL Nos.318 319 320 321 322 326 327 328 329 356 357 360,361.363 365,366. 367 , 368 ,369. 370 373,375 376,382 383,384. 385 386, 387.388 , 389 392.393 394, 396 ,397.398 400 ,402 AND 42I OF 2021
WA NO:31 80F 2021
writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters patent prefered against the order dated 11 ro2r2021 passed in wp No 20425 0f 2009 and batch (w.e. ruos. s!ee, ss87, aoaz, ans, 7473,7474,7475,7476,7477,755s,8416,8417,84i8,8419, Miii,-1iiii,\ttzsor 2006' 5039 of 2008, 17505, 1B2gB, 19893, 1g9os, 19996, 20113, zo,taq, zosba, zoqzs, 20431 , 20526,20838, 23549, 24100, 24102, 24104, 24i}s, 241Og of Zooe, S31 o Or ZOr r , 15497 oF 2016, 7960 oF 2017 and 8780 oF 2020) on tne iite or tne t-tigh c"rrt.- -
Between:
IelaNilgS-tatewakf BoardRep by its cEo, office at Haj House, Razzak lVanzir, Opp Public Gardens, Nampa y, Hyberjbad.-' AND .,.APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.2
-its Principal Secretary, Secretariat Buitdinqs, HvOdiaUaS.HvOdiaUaS.
-its Principal Secretary, Secretariat Buitdinqs, HvOdiaUaS.HvOdiaUaS. 3 I he lnspector Generar stamps and Regis[ration. Government of Ap, Hvderabad. 4. The Sub Registrar, Champapet, Ranga-Reddy Districf (Weiii.
...RESPONDENTS
lA NO: 1 OF 2021
Petition under Section i s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay the operation of the common order of the Honble Learned single Judge dated. 1 1-02-2021 passed in W.P.No.20425 of 2009 pending of the Writ Appeal
Counsel for the Appellant: SRI ABU AKRAM
Counsel for Respondent No. 1: SRt SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY
Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 4: Gp FOR REVENUE
WA NO: 319 0F 2021
Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dated 1110212021 inw.PNo 1s497or2016andbatch(W.p.Nos.5938,5987,6082,677s,7473, 7474.7475,7476,7477,7559, 8416, 8417,8418,8419, 14734, 14745, 17125 0f 2006, 5039 of 2008, 17505,.18298, 19893, 19905, 19996, 20113, 20164, 20326, 20425, 20431 . 20526,20838,23549,24100,24102,24104,24105,24109of2009,3310OF 2011,15497 OF 2016, 7960 OF 2O1t and B78O OF 2O2O) on the fite of the High Court.
2
Between:
Telangana State Wakf Board, Rep. by its CEO, Office at Haj House, RazzakManzil, opp Public Garc Nampally' Hyderabad' "ns' ...A''ELLANT/RE''.NDENT No.2
AND
10.The state of reta tsana, RevenueDepartment, a#;5,t?[?-ffrti'Jtt##r
12.The Deputy Colle lor and Tahsildai, SaroornagjrrMan!{,Ranga Reddy District.
13.The Reveriue Div sional Officer,Ranga Reddy District( East) Division.
lA NO: 1 OF 2021
Petition under S'rction 151 CPCprayingthat in the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in suppo t of thepetition, the High court may be pleased to staythe operation of the Commrn Orderof the Honble Learned Single Judge daled.l 1 lO2l2O21 passed inW.P.No. 154{ 7 OF2016,pending of theWritAppeals,
Counsel for the Appell:nt: SRIABU AKRAM
Counsel for Respondert Nos. 1 to 9: SRI K. JANAKIRAMIREDDY
Counsel for Respondelt Nos. 10 to 15: GP FORREVENUE
WA NO: 320 OF 2021
Writ Appeal underclau ;e 15 of the Letters Patent preferredagainst the order dated 11.O2.2O21inWP.No7i59of2006andbatch(WP'Nos5938'5987'6082'6775'7473' 7474.7475,7476,747i7559, 8416, 8417,8418,8419,14734' 14745', 17125 0f 2006', 5039of2008,17505,1t298,19893,19905,19996,20113'20164'20326'20425'20431' 20526,20838,23549,2,1o0,24102,24104,24105'24109of2009,3310oF2011,15497 OF 2016, 7960OF 2017 and8780 OF 2O2O\on the file of the High Court' Between:
Telanoana State</sup> /akf Board'Rep. by its CEO, Officeat Haj House' RazzakManzil Opp Fublic Gardets, Nampally, Hyderabad. ...A''ELLANr/RE.'.NDENTNo.3
-l
AND
lA NO: 1 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 stay the operation of the Common Order of the Honorable Learned Single Judge daled.11l02l2021 passed in W.P.No. 7559 of 2006 pending of the Writ Appeals
Counsel for the Appellant: SRI ABU AKRAM
Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: SRI C. SUDESH ANAND
Counsel for Respondent Nos. 3 & 4: GP FOR REVENUE
Counsel for Respondent Nos. 5 to 10: ---
WA NO: 321 OF 2021
Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against Order Dated 1110212021 in WP NO 17125 of 2006 and batch (W.P. Nos. 5938, 5987, 6082, 6775,7473, 7474,7475,7476,7477,7559, 8416, 8417, 8418,8419, 14734, 14745, 17125 0f 2006, 5039 of 2008, 17505, 18298, 19893, 19905, 19996, 20113, 20164, 20326, 20425, 20431 , 20526, 20838, 23549, 24100, 24102, 24104, 24105, 24109 of 2009, 33i O OF 2011, i5497 OF 2016, 7960 OF 2017 and 8780 OF 2O2O) on the file of the High Court.
Between:
AND
Iela1sqlgState Wakf.Board, R9p..by its CEO, Office at Haj House, Razzak l{ianzil, Opp Public Gardens, Nampally, Hydeiabad ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO. 3
....RESPONDENT/wRIT PETITIONER
...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2
lA NO: 1 OF 2021
Petition under Section i 5i cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay the
4
operation of the C rmmon Order of the Honourable Learned Single dated.ll10212021 pass :d in W.P.No. 17125 of 2006pending of the Writ Appeal Counsel forthe Appel ant: SRI ABU AKRAM
Judge
Counsel for Responde rt No. 1: SRI O. MANOHAR REDOY
Counsel for Responde rt Nos. 2 & 3: GP FOR REVENUE
WA NO: 322OF 2021
Wdt Appeal under clar se 15 of the Letters Patentpreferredagainst the orderdated 1110212021 in W.P.No. 473of 2006 and batch(W.P. Nos. 5938, 5987,6082, 6775'7473' 7474,7475,7476,747 , 7559, 8416, 8417,8418,8419,14734, 14745, 17125 0f 2006, 5039 of 2008, 17505, 1|298, 19893,19905, 19996,20113.20164,20326'20425,20431 ' 20526, 20838, 23549,21100, 24102, 24104,24105,24109 of 2009, 3310 OF 2011'15497 OF 2016, 7960 OF 201'7 and 8780 OF 2020) on thefile of the High Court.
Between:
AND
5
,l
lA NO: 1 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 bepleased to stay the operation of the Common Order of the Hon'ble Learned Single Judge dated 1 110212021 passed in W.P.No. 7473 of 2006 pending of the Writ Appeal
Counsel for the Appellant: SRI ABU AKRAM
Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: SRI C. SUDESH ANAND
Counsel for Respondent Nos. 3 & 4: GP FOR REVENUE
Counsel for Respondent Nos. 5 to 26: SRI MOHD. AZEEMUDDIN FAROOQUI
WA NO: 326 OF 2021
Writ Appeal under ctause 15 of the Letters Patentpreferred against Order Dated 1110212021 in WP.No.19905 of 2009 and batch(W.P. Nos. 5938, 5987, 6082,6775,7473, 7474.7475,7476,7477,7559, 8416, 8417,8418,8419, 14734, 14745, 17125 of2006, 5039 of 2008, 17505, 18298, 19893, 19905,19996, 20113, 20164, 20326, 20425,20431 ' 20526.20838,23549,24100,24102,24104,24105,24109 of 2009,3310 OF 2011, 15497 OF 2016, 7960 OF 2017 and B7B0 OF 2020) on thefile of the High Court.
Between:
Telangana State Wakf Board, Rep. by itsC EO, Office at Haj House, Razzak Manzil, Opp Public Gardens,Nampally, Hyderabad. ..,APPELLANT/RESPONOENT NO.2
AND
1 & 3 ro s
IA NO: 1 OF 2021
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in suppo( of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the Common Order of the Hon'ble Learned Single Judge daled.1110212021 passed in W.P.No.19905 of 2009 pending of the Writ Appeal Counsel for the Appellant: SRI ABU AKRAM
6
Counsel for Respond, nt Nos. 1 & 2: SRI MOHD VASI AHMED
Counsel for Respondr nt Nos. 3 to 6: GP FOR REVENUE
WA NO: 327 OF 2021
Writ Appeal under cl ruse 15 of the Letters Patentpreferred against Order dated 11-02-2021 passed by VP.No.84'1 7 of 2006 and batch (W.P. Nos. 5S38, 5987, 6082,6775, 7473, 7474, 7475, 747 i, 7477, 7559, 8416, 8417, 8418, 8419, 14734, 14745, 17125 0t 2006,5039 of2008, 1 505,'18298, 19893, 19905, 19996,20113,20164,20326,20425, 20431 , 20526, 20838, 2 )549, 24100, 24102, 24104, 24105. 24109 of 2009, 3310 OF 201 1 , 15497 OF 2016, 7960 CF 2017 and B7B0 OF 2020) on the file of the High Court.
Between:
Telangana State /Vakf Board, Rep. by its CEO, Office at Haj House, Razzak Manzii, Opp Public Gardt ns, Nampally, Hyderabad.
AND
1 1. Sved Moosa Razz ziadi, S/o. Latet,4ii l/urthu2a All Zardi Retd. EmployeeRYo' D'.No 22-2-518(O j No. 39/B)Khelthy Balsetty. Hvderabd-24
tZ.Masooma Noorun risa. D/o. LateMir Murthuzd All Zaidi, House Hold,R/o. D.No.22- 2-518(Old No. 39 3) KhelthyBalsetty, Hyderabd-24
t O. aatoot'Xnairu nnis, , b/o.Late H,'tir Muhnu2aAll Zaida,Household, RJoD No 22-2- 518 (Old No. 39/B KhelthyBalsetty,Hyderabd-24.
7
(Respondents 34 to 40 rep.by their GPA Holder Mir Sabar Ali, S/o. Mir Ahmed Ali, aged about 58 years, Occ,Business, R/o. H.No.22-2-700, Panjetan Colony, Darulshafa' Hyderabad
...RES'.NDENTS/RE''.NK,ENT' 1, z & 4 To 17
lA NO: 1 OF 2021
Petition under Section 151 CPCpraying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the Common Order of the Honble Learned Single Judge dated.1111212021 passed in W.P.No. 8417 of 2006 pending of the Writ Appeal,
Counsel for the Appellant: SRI ABU AKRAM
Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 24: SRI M. MEHDI HUSSAIN
Counsel for Respondent Nos. 25 & 26: GP FOR REVENUE
Counsel for Respondent Nos. 27 to 40: SRI SYED JAWEED ABBAS NADEEM
ii
WA NO: 328 OF 2021
Writ Appeal under cla rse 15 of the Letters Patent Preferred against the Order Dated 1110212021 in W.P.No'9893 of 2009 and batch (W.P. Nos. 5938, 5987, 6082, 6775,7473, 7474,7475,7476,74-,7,7559,8416,8417,8418, 8419, 14734, 14745, 17125 0f 2006, 5039 of 2008, 17505, 8298,'19893, 19905, 19996, 20113,20164,24326,20425,20431, 20526, 20838, 23549,: 4100,24102, 24104,24105, 24109 of 2009, 3310 OF 2O11, 15497 OF 2016, 7960 OF 201' and 8780 OF 2020) on the file of the High Court
Between:
Telangana State Wakf Board, Rep. by its CEO, Office at Haj House, Razzak Manzil, oppPublicGardtns'Nampally'Hyderabad ...A''ELLANT/RE.'.NDENTNo.2
AND
...RES,.NDENT'/RES..NDENTS I & 3 To 5
lA NO: 1 OF 2021
Petition under S rction'1 51 CPCpraying that in the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in suppo t of thepetition, the High Courtmay be pleased to stay the operation of the Comm rn Order of theHon'ble Learned SingleJudge daledll'O2-2O21 passed in WP.No.1989: of 2009 pending of the Writ Appeal, and topass Counsel for the Appell. rnt: SRIABU AKRAM
Counsel for Respondert Nos.1 to 3: SRI MOHDWASI AHMED
Counsel for Respondert Nos.4 to 7: GP FORREVENUE
WA NO: 329 OF 2021
Writ Appeal under clat se't 5of the Lefters Patent preferredagainst the order dated 111O2t2O21 in w P No i 360 of2017 and batch(w.P. Nos. 5938, 5987,6082, 6775,7473' 7474,7475,7476,747',,7559, 8416, 8417,8418,8419,14734' 14745, 171250f 2006, 5039 of 2008, 17505,1. 298, 19893, 19905,19996, 20113,20164,20326,20425'20431' 20526,20838,23549,2,100,24102, 24104,24105,241090f 2009, 3310 0F 2011 , 15497 OF 2016, 7960 OF2017and 8780 OF 2020) on the file of the High Court
Between:
Telangana State\VakfBoard, Rep. by its C EO, Office at Hai House,RazzakManzil, Opp Public Garde ts,Nampally,Hyderabad ...APPELLANTi RESPONDENTNO.2
AND
9
lA NO: 1 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 stay the operation of the common order of the Honble Learned Single Judge dated. 1110212021 passed in W.P. 7960 OF 2017 pending of the Writ Appeals
Counsel for the Appellant: SRI ABU AKRAM
Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: SRI c. SHIVA KUMAR GOUD
Counsel for Respondent Nos. 5 to 11: GP FOR REVENUE
WA NO: 3 oF 2021
Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Writ preferred against the order dated.1110212020 in W.P.No.6082 of 2006 and batch (W.P. Nos. 5938, 5987, 6082, 6775, 7473,7474,7475,7476,7477,7559,8416,8417,8418, 8419, 14734, 14745, 17125 0f 2006, 5039 of 2008, 17505, 18298, 19893, 19905, 19996, 201 13, 20164,20326,20425, 20431 , 20526, 20838, 23549, 24100, 24102, 24104, 24105, 24109 of 2009, 331 0 OF 2011 , 15497 OF 2016, 7960 OF 2017 and B7B0 OF 2020) on the file of the High Court
Between:
Telangana State Wakf Board, Rep. by its CEO; Office at Haj House, Razzak ltAanzil, Opp Public Gardens, Nampally, Hyderabad.
AND
..,APPELLANT/RESPON DENT NO. 5
J. K.B..Chandra Mouli, S/o. (Late.) MallaiahGupta, Rl/o. 13-6-4451N4, Ring Road,
t0
L Mohd. Sadatkha r, S/o. Late Rasool, Ex-Servicemen and Social Service R/o. Chilkur Road' Ranga R€ idy District
lA NO: 1 OF 2021
Petition under S ection 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in supp( rt of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the Comn on Order of the Honble Learned Single Judge daled.11-02-2021 passed in W.P.No. 608 2 of 2006 pending of the Writ Appeal Counsel for the Appell rnt: SRI ABU AKRAMM
Counsel for Responde'rt Nos. 1 to 4: M/s. BHARADWAJ ASSOCIATES
Counsel for Responde rt Nos. 5 & 6: GP FOR REVENUE
Counsel for Responde rt Nos. 7 to 9: SRI M. A. ASHFAQ MOHIUDDIN
WA NO: 357 OF 2021
Writ Appeal under clal se 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the Order dated. 11-02-2021 in W.P.No. rg87 of 2006 and batch (W.P. Nos. 5938, 5987, 6082, 6775,7473, 7474, 7475, 7476, 747',, 7559, 8416, 8417, 8418, 8419, 14734, 14745, 17125 0f 2006, 5039 of 2008, 17505, 1r 298, 19893, 19905, 19996, 20113,20164,20326,20425,20431 , 20526, 20838, 23549, 2. 10o, 24102, 24104, 24105, 24109 ot 2009, 3310 OF 2011, 15497 OF 2016, 7960 OF 2017 and B7B0 OF 2020) on the file of the High Court
Between:
Telangana State \ /akf Board, Rep. by its CEO, Office at Haj House, Razzak Manzil, opp Public Garde ts'Nampally' Hyderabad
...A''ELLANT/RES'.NDENT No. s
AND
IA NO:1 OF 2021
Petition under Se :tion 151CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in suppor ofthe petition, the High court may be pleased to stay the operation of the commor order of the Honble Learned Single Judge dated.11-02'2021 passed in W.P.No. 5987 of 2006pending of the Writ Appeals, and to pass
Counsel for the Appella rt:SRIABU AKRAM
Counsel for Responden:Nos.1 to 4: M/s. BHARADWAJASSOCIATES
ll
Counsel for Respondent Nos. 5 & 6: GP FOR REVENUE
Counsel for Respondent Nos. 7 to 9: SRI M. A. ASHFAQ MOHIUDDIN
WA NO: 360 OF 2021
Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the Order Dated 1110212021 in WP.No.20838 of 2009 and batch (W.P. Nos. 5938, 5987, 6082,6775,7473, 7474,7475,7476,7477,7559, 8416, 8417,8418,8419, 14734, 14745, 17125 0f 2006, 5039 of 2008, 17505, 18298, 19893, 19905, 19996, 20113,20164,20326,20425,2043i, 20526, 20838, 23549, 24100, 24102, 24104, 24105, 24109 of 2009, 331 0 OF 2011 , 15497 OF 2016, 7960 OF 2017 and 8780 OF 2020) on the file of the High Court
Between:
Telangana State Wakf Board, Rep. by its CEO, Office at Haj House, Razzak Manzil, Opp Public Gardens, Nampally, Hyderabad. .,. AP P ELLANT/RE S PO N D E NT NO. 2
AND
...RESPONDENTS
lA NO: 1 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 stay the operation of the Common Order of the Hon'ble Learned Single Judge dated .11 10212021 passed in W.P.No.20838 of 2009 pending of the Writ Appeals
Counsel for the Appellant: SRI ABU AKRAM
Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: SRI ASHOK REDDY KANATHALA
Counsel for Respondent Nos. 4 to 6: GP FOR REVENUE
WA NO: 36'l OF 2021
Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the Order Dated 1110212021 in W.P. No. 2043'1 of 2009 and batch (W.P. Nos. 5938, 5987, 6082, 6775, 7473,7474,7475,7476,7477,7559,8416,8417,8418,8419, 14734, 14745, 17125 0f 2006, 5039 of 2008, 17505, 18298, 19893, 19905, 19996, 201 13, 20164,20326,20425, 20431 , 20526,20838, 23549, 24100, 24102, 24104, 24105, 24i09 oI 2009,3310 OF 201 1 , 1 5497 OF 2016, 7960 OF 2017 and 8780 OF 2020\ on the fite of the High Court
l
Betwee n:
Telangana Sta a Wakf Board, Rep. by its CEO, Office at Haj House, Razzak Manzil, opp Public Ga lens' Nampally' Hyderabad ...AppELLANT/REspoNDENT No.2
AND
lA NO: 1 OF 2021
Petition under 3ection 151 CPCpraying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in supl ort of the petition, the High Court may bepleased to staythe operation of the Co rmon Order of the HonourableLearned Single Judgedated. 1110212021 passed in W P.No.20431 of 2009pending of theWrit Appeal,
Counsel for the Appe llant: SRI ABU AKRAM
Counsel for Responc ent No. 1: SRI SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY
Counsel for Respond rnt Nos. 2 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE
WA NO: 363 OF 2021
Writ Appeal under cL use 15 of the Letters Patentpreferred againstthe order Dated 11t12t2021 in writpe1 tion No. 23549 of 2009 and batch(W.P. Nos 5938,5987' 6082' 6775,7473,7474,747i,7476,7477,7559,8416,8417,8418,8419,14734,14745,17125 of 2006, 5039 of 2008 17505, 18298,19893, 19905, 19996,20113,20164' 20326' 20425, 20491,20526,20838,13549,24100,24102,24104,24105'24109of 2009,3310 OF 2011, 15497 OF 2016, 7960 )F 2017 and8780 OF 2020\ on the file of the High Court
Betwee n:
Telanqana statr wakf Board,Rep. by its cEo, officeat Haj House, Razzaklvlanzil, oppiublicGar<ens,Nampally,Hyderabad ...AppELLANT./REspoNDENTNo.2
AND
ll
lA NO: 1 OF 2021
Petition under Section'1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the Common Order of the Honble Learned Single Judge dated-1 1-02-2021 passed in W.P.No.23549 of 2009 pending of the Writ Appeals
Counsel for the Appellant: SRI ABU AKRAM
Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: SRI DIDAVIJAYA KUMAR
Counsel for Respondent Nos. 5 to 8: GP FOR REVENUE
WA NO: 365 OF 2021
Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the Order Dated 1110212021 passed in WP No 6775 of 2006 and batch (W.P. Nos. 5938, 5987, 6082,6775, 7473,7474,7475,7476,7477,7559,8416,8417,8418, 8419, 14734, 14745, 17125 0f 2006, 5039 of 2008, 17505, 18298, 19893, 19905, 19996, 20113, 20164,20326,20425, 20431 ,20526,20838, 23549, 241OO, 24102,24104, 24105, 24109 oI 2009, 3310 OF 2011, 15497 OF 2016, 7960 OF 2017 and 8780 OF 2020) on the file of the High Court
Between:
Telangana State Wakf Board, Rep. by its CEO, Office at Ha.j House, Razzak Manzil, oppPublicGardens'Nampally'Hyderabad ...A''ELLANT/RES'.NDENTNo.3
AND
l.l
lA NO: 1 OF 2021
Petition under S ?ction 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in suppc t of the. petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the Comn:n Order of the Honble Learned Single Judge daled.11lO2l2021 passed in W.P.No.677t of 2006 pending of the Writ Appeal
Counsel for the Appell rnt: SRI ABU AKRAM
Counsel for Responde rt Nos. 1 to 7: SRI D. JAGAN MOHAN REDDY
Counsel for Responde rt Nos. 8 & 9: GP FOR REVENUE
Counsel for Responde rt Nos. 10 to 23: ---
WA NO: 366 OF 2021
Writ Appeal under cla rse 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against Order Dated 1110212021 in W.P.No 7 t74 ot 2006 and batch (W.P. Nos. 5938, 5987, 6082, 6775,7473, 7474,7475,7476,747i, 7559, 8416, 8417,8418, 8419, 14734, 14745, 17125 of 2006, 5039 of 2008, 17505, 1{ 298, 19893, 19905, 19996, 20113,20164,20326,20425,20431, 20526,20838,23549,2, 100,24102,24104,24105,24109 of 2009, 3310 OF2011, 15497 OF 2016, 7960 OF 2017 and 8780 OF 2020) on the file ofthe HighCourt
Between:
AND
l5
(Respondents '10 to'l 5^ rep.by their GPA Holder Mir Sabar Ali, S/o, Mlr Ahmed Ali, aged. abo.ut 58 years, Occ Business, R/o. H.No.22-2-700, panjetan Colony, Darulshafa, Hyderabad.
...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1, 2 & 4 TO 15
lA NO: 1 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 stay the operation of the common order of the Hon'ble Learned single Judge datedl l -02-2021 passed in W.P.No. 7474 of 2006 pending of the Writ Appeals
Counsel for the Appellant: SRI ABU AKRAM
Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: SRI C. SUDESH ANAND
Counsel for Respondent Nos. 5 & 6: GP FOR REVENUE
Counsel for Respondent Nos. 7 to 18: SRI SYED JAWEED ABBAS NADEEM
WA NO: 367 OF 2021
Writ Appeal under clause'15 of the Letters Patent preferred against Order Dated 1110212021 passed in WP No.17505 of 2009 and batch (W.P. Nos. 5938, 5987, 6082, 6775, 7473,7474,7475,7476,7477,7559, 8416, 8417,8418, 8419, 14734, 14745, 17125 0f 2006, 5039 of 2008, 17505, 18298, 19893, 19905, 19996, 201 13, 20164,20326,20425, 20431,20526,20838, 23549, 241oo,24102,24104,24105,24109 ot 2009, 3310 OF 2011, 15497 OF 2016, 7960 OF 2017 and 8780 OF 2020) on the fite of the High Court
Between:
Telangana State Wakf Board, Rep. by its CEO, Office at Haj House. Razzak Manzil, oppPublicGardens'Nampally'Hyderabad' ...A''ELLANT/RES'.NDENTNo.3
AND
16
1 & 3 ro s lA NO: 1 OF 2021
Petition under S )ction 151 CPCprayingthat in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in suppo t of thepetition, the High court may be pleased to stay the operation of the C< mmon Order of theHonourable Learned SingleJudge daled.11l02t2O21pass, d in W.P.No.'17505of 2009 pending of the Writ Appeals
Counsel for the Appell rnt: SRIABU AKRAM
Counsel for Responde rt Nos.1 to13: SRI ASHOK REDDY KANATHALA
Counsel for Respondert Nos.14 to 17: GPFOR REVENUE
WA NO: 368 OF 2021
writ Appeal underclal se 15 of the Letters Patent preferredagainst the orderdated 11t02t2021 in the w.P.l o. 20113of 2009 and batch(w.P. Nos.5938, 5987,6082,6775, 7473,7474,7475,747(,7477,7559,8416,8417,8418'8419,14734,14745,17125)',f 2006, 5039 of 2008,17;05,18298, 1S893,19905, 19996,201 13' 20164' 20326' 20425' 20431,20526,20838,2"54g,24100,24102,24104,24105'24109of2009'3310OF2011' 15497oF2016,7960o2017and8780oF2020)onthefileoftheHighCourt
Between:
Telanoana State\VakfBoard, Rep by its CEO, Office at Haj House' Razzakl\4anzil' OppP"ublicGarders,Nampally,Hyderabad ...A'pELLANTiRESp.NDENTNo.2
AND
1'7
lA NO: 1 OF 2021
Petition under Section151CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed insupport of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay the operationoftheCommonOrderoftheHonourableLearnedSingleJudge dated.11to2t2o21passed in w.P.No.20113 of 2009 pending of the writ Appeal Counsel for the Appellant:SRIABU AKRAM
Counsel for RespondentNos.1 & 2: SRI PRABHAKARPERI
Counsel for RespondentNos' 3 to 6: GP FORREVENUE
WA NO : 369 OF 2021
Writ Appeal under clause15 of the Letters Patent preferred againstthe orderdated 11-02-2021 in wP No.20526of 2009 and batch (w.P. Nos. 5938, 5987,6082,6775,7473, 7474,7475,7476,7477,7559,8416,8417, 8418,8419, 14734, 14745'171250f 2006, 5039 of 2008, 17505,18298, 19893, 19905, 19996,20113,20164,20326,20425'20431' 20526, 2oB3B, 23549,24100,24102,24104' 24105, 24109 of 2009, 3310 oF 2011'15497 OF 2016,7960 OF 2017and 8780 OF 2020) on the file of the HighCourt
Between:
Tela nqana State Wakf Board,ReP. bY its C EO, Office at Hai House.RazzakManzil, opp iublic Gardens, Nampally.Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.2
AND
+. ir.',e tnipeitorGen"eral stamps and Registration, Governmentof Telangana Hvderabad.
?-'Sgl.J#r?tlls/RESpoNDENrs1, 3 & 4
lA NO: 1 OF2021
petitio" unoer section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in supportof the petition, the Highcourt may be pleased to stay the operation of the commonorder of the Honble Learned single Judge daled .11-02-2021 passed in W.P.No.20526 of 2009pending of theWrit Appeal
Counsel for the Appellant:SRIABU AKRAM
Counsel for RespondentNos. 1 & 2: SRISAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY
Counsel for Respondent Nos. 3 to 5: GPFOR REVENUE
WA NO: 370 OF 2021
writ Appeal under clause 15 of the LettersPatent preferred against the order Dated.11lO2t2O21 in WP.No. 18298 of 2009 andbatch (W.P.Nos.5938, 5987,6082'6775' 7473,7474,7475,7476,7477,7559,8416,8417,8418,8419,14734, 14745, 17125 0f 2006, 5039 of 2008, 17505, 18298, 19893,19905, 19996,201 13,20164' 20326' 20425'
18
20431,20526,20838, 13549, 241OO,24102,24104,24105,24109 of 2OOg,331O OF 2011, 15497 OF 2016, 7960t )F 2017 and B7B0 OF 2O2O) on the fite of the High Court
Between:
Telangana s_tate wakf Board, Rep. by its cEo, office at Ha; House, Razzak lVlanzil, Opp Public Garc ens, Nampally, Hydeiabad.
AND
,.APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO. 2
1 & 3 ro 5
lA NO: 1 OF 2021
Petition under ! ection 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in suppr rt of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay the operation of the comn on order of the Hon'ble Learned Single Judge dated.j 1lo2l2oz1 passed in W.P.No. '182 98 of 2009 pending of the Writ Appeal
Counsel forthe Appel ant: SRI ABU AKRAM
Counsel for Respondr nt No. 1: SRI G. SHTVA KUMAR GOUD
Counsel for Respondr nt Nos. 2 to 5: GP FOR REVENUE
WA NO: 373 OF 2021
Writ Appeal under cla rse 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the Order Dated 1110212021 inW.P.No. l4100of2009andbatch(W.P.Nos.5938,5987,6082,6775,7473, 7474,7475,7476,7477,7559,8416,8417,841B, 8419, 14734, 14745, 17125 0t 2006, 5039 of 2008, 17505,'8298, 19893, 19905, 19996, 20113,20164, 20326, 20425,20431, 20526,20838,23549,', 4100,24102, 24104,24105, 24109 ol 2009, 3310 OF 2011, 15497 OF 2016, 7960 OF 201 and 8780 OF 2020)on the file of the High Court
Between:
Telangana State Wakf Board, Rep. by its CEO, Office at Haj House, Razzak Manzil, opp Public Gard rns' Nampally' Hyderabad ...AppELLANT/REspoNDENT No.3
AND
1 & 2
lA NO: 1 OF 2021
Petition under S ection 15'1 CPCpraying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in suppr rt of the petition, the High Court may bepleased to stay the operation of the Cor mon Order of the Honourable Learned Single Judge dated. 1110212021 passed in 'V.P.No. 24100 o'f 2009 pending of the Writ Appeal,
l9
Counsel for the Appellant: SRI ABU AKRAM
Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: SRI V. VENKATARAMANA
Counsel for Respondent Nos. 3 & 4: GP FOR REVENUE
WA NO: 375 OF 2021
Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dated 1110212021 in W.P.No. 7477 of 2006 and batch (W.P. Nos. 5938, 5987, 6082, 6775,7473, 7474,7475,7476,7477,7559, 8416, 8417, 8418,8419, 14734, 14745, 17125 0f 2006, 5039 of 2008,'17505, 18298, 19893, 19905, 19996, 2O113,20164,20326,20425,20431 , 20526, 20838, 23549, 24100, 24102, 24104, 24105, 24109 of 2009, 33'1 0 OF 201i , 15497 OF 2016, 7960 OF 2017 and 8780 OF 2020) on the file of the High Court
Between:
Telangana State Wakf Board, Rep. by its CEO, Office at Haj House, Razzak Manzil, opp Public Gardens' Nampally' Hyderabad ...A''ELLANT/RES',NDENT No. s
AND
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 the operation of the common order of the Honourable Learned Single Judge dated 1110212021 passed in W.P.No. 7477 of 2006 pending of the Writ Appeal
20
Counsel for the Appe lant: SRI ABU AKRAM
Counsel for Respond rnt No. 1: SRI C. SUDESH ANAND
Counsel for Respondrnt Nos. 2 & 3: GPFOR REVENUE
Counsel for Respond,nt Nos.4 to15: SRISYED JAWEEDABBASNADEEM
WA NO: 376 OF 2021
Writ Appeal under clz use 15 of theLetters Patent preferredagainst the orderdated 1110212021 in WP No.! 4102of2009andbatch (w.P. Nos. 5938,5987,6082,6775,7473, 7474,7475,7476,74i7,7559,8416,8417,8418,8419,14734, 14745' 17125 0f 2006' 5039 of 2008, 17505, 8298, 19893,19905, 19996,20113,20164. 20326' 20425'20431 ' 20526, 20838, 23549,', 4100, 24102,24104, 24105, 24109 oI 2009, 3310 OF 2011'15497 OF 2016, 7960 OF 201' and 8780OF 2020) on the file of the HighCourt
Between:
Telanqana State Wakf Board,Rep. by its CEO, Office at Haj House,RazzakManzil, Opp Fublic Gard rns,Nampally,Hyderabad ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENTNO. 3
AND
1 & 2
lA NO: 1 OF 2021
Petition underS )ction151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the affidavitfiledinsuppclofthepetition,theHighCourtmaybepleasedtostaythe operation of the comrtn orderof the Honble Learned Single Judgedated-1110212021 passed in W.P.No.24'1( 2 ol2OO9 pending of the Writ Appeal
Gounsel for theAppellrnt: SRI ABU AKRAM
Counsel forResponde rt Nos. 1 & 2: SRIV' VENKATARAMANA
Counsel forResponde rt Nos. 3 & 4: GP FOR REVENUE
WA NO : 382 OF2O21
WritAppealunderclarse15oftheLettersPatentpreferredagainsttheorderdated 11tO2l2O21inW.P.No.i416of2006andbatch(W'PNos'5938'5987'6082'6775'7473' 7474, 7475,7476, 747 7559, 8416,8417, 8418, 8419, 14734',14745', 171250l 2006', " 5039of2008,17505,11298,19893,19905,19996'20113'20164'20326'20425'20431' 20526,20838,23549,2t1o0,24102'24104,24105'24109of2OO9'3310OF2011'15497 oF2016,7960oF201rand8780oF2020)onthefileoftheHighCourt
2l
Between:
Telangana State Wakf Board, Rep. by its CEO, Office at Haj House, Razzak lVlanzil, opp Public Gardens' Nampally' Hyderabad
...A,'ELLANT/RES'.NDENT No. 3
AND
22
35.C. Mallesha,-Sl, . f-ate Yellaiah agriculturist,Fl/o. Mamidipalli Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga leddy District, A.P.
lA NO: 1 OF 2021
Petition underI iection 151 CPCpraying that in thecircumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in supp rrt of thepetition, theHighCourt may be pleased to staythe operation of the C ommon Order of theHonourable Learned Single Judge daledj1t02t202'1pasr ed in W.P.No. 8416of 2006 pending of the Writ Appeals, Counsel for the Appe lant: SRI ABU AKRAM
Counsel for Respond 'nt Nos. I lo24'. SRI M. MEHDI HUSSAIN
Counsel for Respond, nt Nos. 25 &26:GPFOR REVENUE
Counsel for Respond, nt Nos. 27 to41 : ---
WA NO: 383 OF 2021
writ Appeal undercle lse15 of the Letters Patent preferredagainst the orderdated 11t0212021 in writ Petion No 8418 of 2006 and batch (w.P. Nos 5S38,5987, 6082' 6775' 7473,7474,7475,74-,6,7477,7559,8416,8417,8418'8419,14734,14745,171250f 2006,5039 of2008,1'505, 18298, 19893, 19905' 19996,20113'20164'20326'20425' 20431,20526,20838';3549,24100,24102,24104,24105,24109of2009,3310oF2011, 1 54S7 OF 201 6, 7960( tF 2017and8780 oF 2020) on the file of the High court Between:
Telanoana StateWakf Board, Rep. by its CEO, Officeat Haj House' Razzak Manzil' Opp P'ublic Garc.'ns,Nampally, Hyderabad. ...Ap'ELLANT
AND
23
lB.Shahensha Begum, Wo. MirSabirAliAbedi, House Hoid, R/o. H.No.23-1-279, Jafferi Galli Kotla AIijah, Hyderabad-23.
l4
41 . Syed Mohamme I Ali, S/o. Late Noorunnisa Begum, (Daughter of Late Ghulam Abbas), Riksha t uller, R/o. 17-4-593, Toale Sab Ki Galli, Yakuthpura, Hyderabad, A.P.
(Respondents 38 to 44 rep.by their GPA Holder M r Sabar Ali, S/o. Mir Ahmed Ali, aged about 58y€ ars, Occ.-Business, Fi/o. H.No.22-2-700, Panjetan Colony, Darulshafa' Hyde abad'
...RESpoNDENTs/REspoNENTs,t,2 & 4To zl
lA NO: 1 OF 2021
Petition under S )ction 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in suppo t of the petition, the High Court may bepleased to stay the operation of the C< mmon Order of the Honourable Learned Single Judge daled.11l02l2021 pass, d in W.P.No. 8419 of 2006pending of the Writ Appeal Counsel for the Appell rntr SRI ABU AKRAM
Counsel for Responde rt Nos. I to 24: SRI M. MEHDI HUSSAIN
Counsel for Responde rt Nos. 25 & 26: GP FOR REVENUE
Counsel for Responde rt Nos. 27 to 44: SRI SYED JAWEED ABBAS NADEEM
WA NO: 384 OF 2021
Writ Appeal under clau ;e 15 of the Letters Patentpreferred against the OrderDated 1110212021 in W,P.No. 2)326 of 2009 and batch(W.P. Nos. 5938, 5987,6082, 6775,7473, 7474,7475,7476,747i 7559, 8416, 8417,8418,8419, 14734,14745,171250f 2006, 5039 of 2008, 17505, 1{ 298, 19893, 19905, 19996,20113,20164,20326'20425' 20431' 20526, 20838, 23549,2, 100,24102, 24104,24105,24109oI 2009, 3310 OF 2011' 15497 OF 2016, 7960 OF 2017 and 8780 OF2020) on the file of the Hish Court
Between:
Telanqana State</sup> /akfBoard, Rep. by its C EO, Office at Haj House,RazzakManzi', OpppYublic Garders, Nan-Tally,Hyderabad
..,APPELLANT/RESPONDENTNO. 2
AND
J. M.gii6kriinna, S/r . NaveentamNaidu, Rl/o.Plot No 62, H.No.6-3-596/62, Venkatramana Co ony, Khairatabad,Hyderabad.
l5
lA NO: 1 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 bepleased to stay the operation of the Common Order of the Honorable Learned Single Judge daled.11l02l2021 passed in W.P.Nos. 5938/2006 and batch 5987, 6082, 6775,7473, 7474,7475,7476,7477,7559, 8416, 8417, 8418, 8419, 14734,14745,17125of 2006, 5039 of 2008, 17505, 18298, 19893, 19905, 19996, 201 13,20164,20326,20425, 20431 .20526.20838, 23549, 24100, 24102, 24104, 24105,24109 of 2009, 3310 OF 2011, 15497 OF 2016, 7960 OF 2017 and 8780 OF 2020pending of the Writ Appeals, Counsel for the Appellant: SRI ABU AKRAM
Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: SRI V. VENKATARAMANA
Counsel for Respondent Nos. 5 to 8: GP FOR REVENUE
WA NO: 385 OF 2021
Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patentpreferred against theorder Dated- 1110212021 in writ petition no.33'10 of 2011 and batch(W.P. Nos. 5938, 5987, 6082,6775, 7473,7474,7475,7476,7477.7559, 8416, 8417,8418, 8419, 14734, 14745,171250l 2006, 5039 of 2008, 17505, 18298, 19893, 19905, 19996,20113, 20164,20326,20425, 20431 ,20526,20838, 23549, 24100,24102,24104,24105,24109of 2009, 3310OF 2011, 15497 OF 2016, 7960 OF 2017 and 8780 OF 2020)on the file of the HighCourt
Between:
Telangana State Wakf Board, Rep. by itsC EO, Office at Haj House, Razzak Manzil, Opp Public Gardens,Nampally, Hyderabad.
...APPELLANT/RESPONOENTNO.2
AND
? Sagar D. Jethwani, S/o. DevanandP. Jethwani, Business, R/o. H.No.5-9-30/1/1 ' Chandan Bhavan, Basheerbagh,Hyderabad.
lA NO: 1 OF 2021
Petition under Section 151 CPCpraying that in the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of thepetition, the High Court may bepleased to staythe operation of the Common Order of the Honble Learned SingleJudge daled:11-02'2021 passed in W.P.Nos. 5938/2006 and batch 5987, 6082, 6775,7473,7474, 7475, 7476,
l6
7477,7559,8416,8417,8418,8419, 14734, 14745, 17125 of 2006, 5039 of 2008, 17505, 18298, 19893 19905, 19996, 20113, 20164, 20326, 20425, 20431, 20526, 20838, 23549, 24100, 24102, 24104, 24105, 24109 of 2009, 3310 OF 2O11, 15497 OF 2016, 7960 OF 2017 a rd 8780 OF 2020 pending of the Writ Appeals
Counsel for the Appel ant: SRI ABU AKRAM
Counsel for Responde nt Nos. 1 to 6: SRl KlsHoRE RAI
Counsel forRespondent Nos. 7 to 10: GP FOR REVENUE
WA NO: 386 OF 2021
Writ Appeal under cla rse 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dated 1110212021 in Writ Petit rn No 7476 of 2006 and batch (W.P. Nos. 5938, 5987, 6082,6775, 7473,7474,7475,747 i,7477,7559, 8416, 8417,8418,8419, 14734, 14745, 17125 0l 2006, 5039 of 2008, 1;505, 18298, 19893, 19905, 19996, 201 13, 20164, 20326, 20425, 20431 ,20526,20838,2 \549,24100,24102,24104,24105,24109 of2009, 3310 OF 2011, 15497 OF 201 6, 7960 C = 2017 and 8780 OF 2020) on the file of the High Court
Between:
AND
27
(Respondents 10 to 15 rep.by their GPA Holder Mir Sabar Ali, S/o. lr/ir Ahmed Ali, aged abo-ut 58 years, Occ. Business, F/o. H.No.22-2-700, Panjetan Colony, Darulshafa' Hyderabad
...RES'.NDENTS/RES,.NDENTS 1, 2 & 4 To 1s
A NO:1 OF 2021
Petition under Section I 51 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay the operation of the Common Order of the Honourable Learned Single Judge dated.11l02/2O21 passed in W.P.No. 7476 of 2006 pending of the Writ Appeal,
Counsel for the Appellant: SRI ABU AKRAM
Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: SRI c. SHIVA KUMAR GOUD
Counsel for Respondent Nos.4 & 5: GP FOR REVENUE
Counsel for Respondent Nos. 6 to 17: SRI SYED JAWEED ABBAS NADEEM
WA NO: 387 OF 2021
Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preffered against the order dated 1110212021 in WP NO.5938 of 2006 and batch (W.P. Nos. 5938, 5987, 6082, 6275.7473, 7474,7475,7476,7477,7559, 8416, 8417, 8418,8419, 14734, 14745, 17125 0f 2006, 5039 of 2008, 17505, 18298, 19893, 19905, 19996, 20113,20164,20326,20425,20431 , 20526,20838,23549,24100,24102,24104,24105,24109 of 2009, 3310 OF 2011,15497 OF 2016, 7960 OF 2017 and 8780 OF 2020) on the file of the High Court
Between:
Telangana State Wakf Board, Rep. by its CEO, Office at Haj House, Razzak Manzil, opp Public Gardens' Nampally' Hyderabad ...A''ELLANT/RES''NDENT No. 3
AND
lA NO: 1 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 stay the operation of the Common Order of the Honorable Learned Single Judge dated11l02l2021 passed in W.P.Nos. 5938/2006 pending of the Writ Appeals Counsel for the Appellant: SRI ABU AKRAM
2E
Counsel for Respon lent Nos. 1 & 2: SRI V. VENKATARAMANA
Counsel for Respon lent Nos. 3 & 4: GP FOR REVENUE
Counsel for Respon lent Nos. 5 to 7: SRI M. A. ASHFAe MOHIUDDIN
WAN O: 388 OF 2021
writ Appeal under c ause 15 of thd Letters patent prefered against the order Dated 1110212021 in Wp. No 1 9996 of 2009 and batch (W.p. Nos. 5938, 5987, 6082, 6775, 1473, 7474,7475,7476,7477,7559, 8416, 8417,8418, 84.19, 14734, 14745, 17125 0f 2006, 5039 of 2008, 17505, 18298, 19893, 19905, 19996, 20113,20164,20326,20425,20431, 20526,20838,23549,24100,24102,24104,24iOS,24ios of 2009, 3310 OF 2011, i\4g7 OF 2016, 7960 OF 20' 7 and B7B0 OF 2020) on the fite of the High Courr
Betwee n:
AND
Telangana Statt Wakf Board, Rep. by its CEO, Office at Hal House, Razzak Manzil, opp Public Gart ens'Nampally' Hyderabad
...AppELLANri REspoNDENT No.2
...RESPONOENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 3 TO 5
NO: 1 OF 2021
Petition under S :ction 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in suppc rt of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the Comn cn Order of the Honble Learned Single Judge dated.,l1lO2l2O21 passed in W.P.Nos. 5( 38/2006 and batch 5987, 6082, 6775, 7473, 7474, 7475,7476, 7477,7559,8416, 84 7,8418,8419, 14734, 14745, 17125 of 2006, s039 of 2008, 17505, 18298,'19893, 19905, 19996, 20113, 20164, 20326, 20425, 20431, 20526, 20838, 23549, 24100, '4102,24104,24105,24109 of 2009, 3310 OF 2011, 15497 OF 2016, 7960 OF 2017 ar J B7B0 OF 2020 pending of the Writ Appeal, and to pass Counsel for the Appell rnt: SRI ABU AKRAM
Counsel for Responde rt Nos. 1 & 2: SRI MOHD WASI AHMED
Counsel for Responde rt Nos.3 to 6: GP FOR REVENUE
WA NO: 389 OF 2021
Writ Appeal under clau ;e 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dated 1110212021 in W.P. No. 24104 of 2009 and batch (W.P. Nos. 5938, 5987, 6082, 6775, 7473,7474,7475,747e 7477,7559,8416,8417,8418, 8419, 14734. 14745, 17125 0f 2006, 5039 of 2008, 17 05, 18298, 19893, 19905, 19996, 20113, 20164,20326,20425,
29
20431 , 20526,20838, 23549, 24100, 24102, 24104, 24105,24109 oI 2009, 3310 OF 201 1, 15497 OF 2016, 7960 OF 2017 and 8780 OF 2O2O) on the file of the High Court
Between;
Telangana State Wakf Board, Rep. by its CEO, Office at Haj House, Razzak ltlanzil, oppPublicGardens'Nampally'Hyderabad ...AppELLANT/REspoNDENrNo.3
AND
lA NO: 1 OF 2021
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of thepetition, the High Court may bepleased to stay the operation of the Common Order of the Honble Learned Single Judge dated-1110212021
passed in W.P.No. 24104 of 2009 pending of the Writ Appeal, and to pass Counsel for the Appellant: SRI ABU AKRAM
Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: SRI V. VENKATARAMANA
Counsel for Respondent Nos. 3 & 4: GP FOR REVENUE
WA NO: 39 2 0F 2021
Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patentpreferred againstthe orderdated 11-02-2021 in W.P.No 1473412006 and batch(W.P. Nos.5938, 5987, 6082, 6775'7473' 7474,7475,7476,7477,7559, 8416, 8417,8418,8419,14734, 14745,171250f 2006, 5039 of 2008, 17505,'18298, 19893,19905, 19996,20113,20164,20326' 20425,20431' 20526,20838,23549,24100,24102,24104,24105,24109of 2009, 3310 OF 2011'15497 OF 2016, 7960 OF 2017 and 8780 OF2020) on the file of the HighCourt
Between:
Telangana State Wakf Board,, Rep. byits C EO, Office at Haj House, Razzaklr,4anzil, Opp Public Gardens, Nampally,Hyderabad.
...APPELLANT/RESPON DENTNO, 3
ANO
lA NO: 1 OF 2021
Petition under Section 151 CPCprayingthat in the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of thepetition, the Highcourt may be pleased to stay the
30
operation of the Comn on Order of the Hon'ble Learned Single Judge dated .1 1-O2-2O21 passed in W.P.No. 14i 34 of 2006 pending of the Writ Appeals, and to pass Counsel forthe Appel ant: SRI ABU AKRAM
Counsel for Respondr nt Nos. 1 to 3: SRI O. MANOHAR REDDY
Counsel for Respondr nt Nos. 4 & 5: GP FOR REVENUE
WA NO: 393 OF 2021
Writ Appeal under cla rse 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the Order dated. 11-02-2021 in W.P.No. 7475 ol 2006 and batch (W.P. Nos. 5938, 5987, 6082,6775,7473, 7474, 7475, 7476, 747t, 7559, 8416, 8417, 8418, 8419, 14734, 14745, 17125 0f 2006, 5039 of 2008, 17505, 13298, 19893, 19905, 19996, 20113.20164,20326,20425,20431 , 20526, 20838, 23549,24100,24102,24104,24105,24109 o'f 2009, 3310 OF 2011,15497 OF 2016, 7960 OF 2O1', and B7B0 OF 2020) on the file of the High Court
Between:
Telangana State flakf Board, Rep. by its CEO, Office at Haj House, Razzak Manzil, opp Public Gardr ns' Nampally' Hyderabad' ...A''ELLANT/RES,.NDENT No.3
AND
12.Mt Zainab Begun , D/o. Late lqbalunnisa Begum, (Dauthter of Late Ghuam Abbas), House hold, R/o.:at No.8, 2nd Floor, Meena Plaza Mandl Mir Alarn, Hyderabad.
(Respondents 10 : 1 5 rep.by their GPA Holder Mir Sabar Ali, S/o. Mir Ahmed Ali, gged abo-ut 58 yei rs, Occ. Business, Ri./o. H.No.22-2-700, Panjetan Colony, Daruishafa, Hyder rbad.
...RESPoNoENTS/RESPONDENTS.t,2 & 4 tO 15 lA NO: 1 OF 2021
Petition under Se rtion 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in suppor of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the
ll
operation of the Common Order of the Honble Learned Single Judge dated.11-02-2021 passed in W.P.No. 7475 ol 2006 pending of the Writ Appeal,
Counsel for the Appellant: SRI ABU AKRAM
Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: SRI c. SHIVA KUMAR GOUD
Counsel for Respondent Nos. 3 & 4: GP FOR REVENUE
Counsel for Respondent Nos. 5 to 16:.SRl SYED JAWEED ABBAS NADEEM WA NO 394 0F 2021
writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dated 11-02-2021 in writ petition No.24105 of 2009 and batch(W.P. Nos. 5938, 5987, 6082, 6775, 7473,7474,7475,7476,7477,7559, 8416, 8417,8418, 8419, 14734, 14745, 17125 0f 2006, 5039 of 2008, 17505, 18298, 19893, 19905, 19996, 201 13,20164,20326,20425, 20431 ,20526,20838,23549, 24100,24102,24104,24105,24109o12009,3310 OF 2011, 15497 OF 2016,7960 OF 2017 and 8780 OF 2O2O) on the file of the High Court
Between:
Telangana State Wakf Board, Rep. by its CEO, Office at Haj House, Razzak Manzil, Opp Public Gardens,Nampally,Hyderabad ...APPELLANT/RESPONOENT NO. 3
ANO
'1 . A. Srinivas Reddy, S/o. Late Bal Reddy, Business, Rt/o. H.No.2-4l2, Mamidipally Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy Districct
....RESPONDENT/VVRIT PETITIONER 2, The District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District at Moosapet, Ranga Reddy District. 3 The sub Registrar' champapet'Ranga Reddv o't11"lrro*o.Nrs/REspoNDENrs
1 & 2 lA NO:'l 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 stay the operation of the Common Order of the Honble Learned Single Judge dated \1-02-2021 passed in W.P.No.24105 of 2009 pending of the Writ Appeal,
Counsel for the Appellant: SRI ABU AKRAM
Counsel for Respondent No. 1: SRI V. VENKATARAMANA
Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3: GP FOR REVENUE
WA NO: 396 OF 2021
Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred Against the Order dated 1110212021 in Wp.No.8780 ol 2020 and batch (W.P. Nos. 5938, 5987, 6082, 6775, 7473, 7474,7475,7476,7477,7559, 8416, 8417,8418,8419, 14734, 14745, 17125 0f 2006, 5039 of 2008, 17505, 18298, 198S3, 19905, 19996, 20113,20164,20326,20425,20431 , 20526,20838,23549,24100, 24102, 24104, 24105,24109 of 2009, 3310 OF 2011, 15497 OF 2016, 7960 OF 2017 and 8780 OF 2020\on the fite of the High Court Between:
Telangana State Wakf Board, Rep. by its CEO, Office at Haj House, Razzak Manzil, oppPublicGardens'NampaHy'Hyderabad
...AppELLANT/REspoNDENTNo.5
32
ANO
lA NO: 1 OF 2021
Petition under s ection'1 51 cPCprayingthat in the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in supp< rt of thepetition, theHigh Courtmay be pleased to stay the operation of the Comn on Order of theHonble Learned Single Judge dated.11lO2l2021 passed in W.P.No 878( OF 2020 pending of the Writ Appeals
Counsel forthe Appel ant: SRI ABUAKRAM
Counsel for Responde nt Nos.1 & 2: SRIRESU MAHENDER REDDY
Counsel for Responde nt Nos.3 to 6: GPFORREVENUE
WA NO: 397 OF
Writ Appeal under cla rse'15 of the LettersPatent preferredagainst the orderdated 11-02-2021 in w.P.No 474512006 andbatch (w.P.Nos. 5938, 5S87,6082, 6775, 7473, 7474,7475,7476,747', 7559, 8416,8417,8418,8419,14734, 14745, 17125 0f 2006, 5039 of 2008, 17505, I 1298, 19893,19905, 19996,20113'20164,20326,20425,20431, 20526, 20838, 23549,21100,24102,24104,24105,24109ol 2009, 3310 OF 2011'15497 OF 2016, 7960 OF 2O1i afi8780 OF 2020) on thef ile of the High Court
Between:
Telanqana State Vakf Board,,Rep. by its CEo, office at Haj House, Razzak Manzil, OppPublicGardrns,Nampally,Hyderabad ...A',ELLANT/RES'.NDENTNo.3
AND
IANO:1OF2021
Petition underS rction151 CPC praying that in the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filedin suppo t of the petition, the Highcourt may be pleased to Stay the operation of thecomm rn order of the Hon'ble Learned Single Judge datedill'02-2021 passed in W.P.No. 147 '5 of 2006pending of the Writ Appeal,
Counsel for the Appellrnt: SRIABU AKRAM
Counsel for Respondert No. 1: SRIO. MANOHAR REDDY
Counsel for Respondett Nos. 2 & 3: GP FOR REVENUE
JJ
WA NO: 398 OF 2021
Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dated 1110212021 in WP No.5039 of 2008 and batch (W.P. Nos. 5938, 5987, 6082, 6775,7473, 7474,7475,7476,7477,755s, 8416, 8417,8418,8419, 14734, 14745, 17125 of 2006, 5039 of 2008, 1750s, 18298, 1s893, 1s905, 19996, 20113,20164,20326,20425,20431 , 20526,20838,23549,24100,24102,24104,24105,24109 of 2009, 3310 OF 2011, 15497 OF 2016,7960 OF 2017 and 8780 OF ZnZOIon the file of the High Court
Between:
Telangana State Wakf Board, Rep. by its CEO, Office at Haj House, Razzak Manzil oppPublicGardens'Nampally'Hyderabad
...AppELLANT/REspoNDENrNo.3
AND
34
(Represented by GPA Holder Mir Mukaram All Khan, S/o. Late Mir Mehdi Hasan Khan' Fl/o 2-111 ' Saroornagar' R R District)
....RES'.NDENTS,,R,r
1, 2 & 4 ro e
lA NO: 1 OF 2021
Petition under S :ction 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in suppc 1 of the petition, the High Court may bepleased to stay the operation of the Comn ln Order of the Honble Learned Single Judge dated.11l02l2O21 passed in W.P.No. 503 ) of 2008 pending of the Writ Appeals
Counsel for thd Appell rnt: SRI ABU AKRAM
Counsel for Responde rt Nos. 1 to 24: SRI MEHDI HUSSAIN KHAN
Counsel for Responde lt Nos.25, 26 &32: GP FOR REVENUE
Counsel for Responde lt Nos. 27 to 30: SRI MOHD. VASI AHMED
Counsel for Responde rt No. 31: SRI B. VENKAT RAMA RAO
WA NO: 400 OF 2021
Writ Appeal under clau ;e'15 of the Letters Patent Preferred Against the Order Dated 1110212021 inW,P.No. |419of2006andbatch(W.P.Nos.5938,5987,6082,6775,7473, 7474,7475,7476,747',, 7559, 8416, 8417,8418, 8419, 14734, 14745, 17125 0f 2006, 5039 of 2008, 17505, 1, 298, 19893, 19905, 199s6, 20113,20164,20326,20425,20431, 20526, 20838, 23549, 2 10O, 24102, 24104, 24105, 24109 ot 2009, 3310 OF 2O11,15497 OF 2016, 7960 OF 2017 and 8780 OF 2020) on the file of the High Court
Between:
Telangana StateI Vakf Board, Rep. by its CEO, Office atHaj House, Razzaklvlanzil, opp Public Garde ls' Nampally' Hyderabad ...A''ELLANT/RES'.NDENT No. 3
AND
35
36
iHJ."".J"hir 12 to 38 rep.bv theirGPA Holder lVir Sabar Ali. S/o tr/rr Ahmed Ali. ls:iiJbort 5-8y€ ars, ociBusiness,R/o H No.22-2-700. Panjetan Colony, Darulshafa' Hyde abad ) ...REspoN 'ENTS/RES'.NDENTS.' z & 4 Toi s lA NO: 1 oF 2021 Petition under S:ction 151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in suppo1 of the petition, the Highcourt may be pleased to staythe operation of thecr mmonorder ofthe Honourable Learned singleJudge dated.11tO2t2O21passrd in W.P.No. 8419 of 2006 pending of the Writ Appeal, Counsel for the Appelllnt: SRIABU AKRAM
Counsel for Respondert Nos. 1 to 24: SRI M MEHDI HUSSAIN
Counsel for Respondert Nos.25& 26: GP FORREVENUE
Counsel for Respondert Nos. 27 to 38: SRISYED JAWEED AHMEDNADEEM
WA NO: 402 OF 2021
writ Appeal underclar se '1 5 of the Letters Patent preferredagainst the orderdated 11102t2021 in w.P No.2 4109 of 2009 and batch(w.P.Nos. 5938, 5987, 6082, 6775, 7 473' 7474,7475,7476,747',,7559,8416,8417,8418'8419,14734,14745,171250f2006' 5039of2008,17505,1298,19893,19905,19996,20113,20164,20326'20425'20431' 20526,20838,23549,2100'24102,24104,24105,24109of2009'3310OF2011'15497 OF 2016, 7960 OF2017and 8780OF 2020) on the file of the High Court
Betwee n:
AND
IA O: Petition under 1 F2 21S, ction 151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filedin suppo t of the petition, the Highcourt may be pleased to stay the operationoftheCommrnorderoftheHon.bleLearnedSingleJudgedaled'1110212021 passed in W.P.No.241C) of 2009 pending of the Writ Appeals'
Counsel forthe Appellrnt: SRIABU AKRAM
Counsel forRespondert Nos' 1 & 2: SRI V VENKATARAMANA
Counsel forRespondert Nos' 3 & 4: GP FOR REVENUE
3T
WA NO: 428 OF 2021
Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the LettersPatent preferred against OrderDated 1110212021 in W.P.No. 20164 of 2009 and batch(W.P. Nos. 5938, 5987, 6082, 6775,7473, 7474,7475,7476,7477,7559, 8416, 8417,8418,8419, 14734, 14745, 17125 0f 2006, 5039 of 2008, 17505, 18298, 19893, 19905, 1SS96, 20113,20164,20326,20425,20431, 20526, 20838, 23549, 24100, 24102, 24104, 24105, 24109 of 2009, 3310 OF 2011 , 15497 OF 2016, 7960 OF 2017 and 8780 OF 2020) on the file of the High Court
Between:
Telangana State Wakf Board, Rep. by its CEO, Office at Haj House, Razzak Manzil, Opp Public Gardens, Nampaily, Hyderabad. ...AppELLANr
AND
6 The Tahsildar' saroornagar Mandal' R'R' District
...RESpoNDENTS/RESpoNDENrs
lA NO:'l OF 2021
Petition under Section 151 CPCpraying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the Common Order of the Honourable Learned Single Judge daled.1110212021 passed in W.P.No, 20164 of 2009 pending of the Writ Appeal
Counsel for the Appellant: SRI ABU AKRAM
Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: SRI PRABHAKAR PERI
Counsel for Respondent Nos. 3 to 6: GP FOR REVENUE
The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT
THE HON'BLE .HE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND THE HOI\ 'BLESRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKERREDDY
200 32610n 328 329 WRIT APPEAL.Ios.318319,32032L 356 357 36r, 361 36336536636'l368369 37() 375 376 38:: 383 384385386347388389 394\ 393 394. 31 6 3973984004O2 AND 42A OF 2021
COMMON JUD iMENT: (Per the Ho,t'ble the ChielJusliceSalish ChandraShatrno)
"(A) W.PNos.5938, 5987,6082, 6775,7473'7474' 747s' 7476, 7477,7559, 8416, a4fi ,8418, 8419, 14734' 14745' 17125 of 20)6,5039of 2008, and15497 of 2016 are filed questioning'he proceedings,datecl 25'O2'2006'issuedby the Joint Collecor-ll, Ranga Rr:ddy District' setting aside the Occupancyt ights Certificates (ORCs)gratlted by the Revenue Divisional( )fficer, Ranga Redcly East Division' dated 07.O1.2005,n favour of the persons' who ate in possession of the subjectI Lnds,as on the clate of vesting i c 01 11 1973'as illegal and Lrbitrary.'lhe:;e rvrit petitionsare hereinafter referred toar 'first batch'.
),
(B) W.P.Nos.17505, ll2g8'19893' 19905'19996' 20 1 1 3, 20164,20326, 20425, 2043r,20526', 20838', 23549 0f 2009, 3310OF 2O1I and 7960 OF 2017 are filed questioning the GazetteNotificationSirpplement2 Part-II No'6A' dated 09.02.1989issued by the Waqf Board' These writ petitions are hereinafterreferred to as 'second batch''
(C) W.P.Nos.2410O,24102' 24104' 24105'24109of 200gandSTSOof2o2oarefiledaggrievedbytheactionofthe RegistrationAuthoritiesin refusing to register the subject documentson the groundthat the said lands are included in the ProhibitoryList under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908(in short'RegistrationAct') being notiliedas property ofWakf Institution -underGazette No'6-A' dated 09.02.1989.These writ petitionsare hereinafter referred to as "lhirdbatch'."
3.Inthefirstbatchofwritpetitions,thepetitionershave preferred WritPetitions UnderArticle 226 ofthe Constitutionof India for quashmentof the Orderdated 25.02.2,006passedby the Joint Collector-Il'RangaReddy District, settingaside the Orderof the Revenue Divisional Officer, RangaReddyEast Division' dated 07'01'2005'by which thenames of the petitionersin the revenue records were directedto be deleted By the sarne Order'the OccupancyRights Certi{icates (ORC) granted tothe petitioners andother persons were set aside and the Revenue DivisionalOfficer was directed to issue ORC in the name ofthe religiousinstitutions'Various orders were lpassedby the Joint Collectorin respect of large number of
L-
-l
lands and a de lailed chart in respectof the common order
is reproduced i.s under:-
| sl. No |
AppealCaseNo.bforethe Jojnt Collectot,langa ReddyDistrct |
{Aggrievedby the orderoftheItDo,RR EastDivision)[.o*er CourtProceedingsNo. & Datcd |
SurveyNumbers |
Extent Guntas I |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | F\1337/2O0s | J1416311986 7-r-2005 |
25r, 252,253, 254, 255&,266 |
75-44 |
| 2 | F1/338/2OOs I |
JI41621t986 7-1-2005 |
275,276,277 | 42-40 |
| 3 | F1/339/200s | J1416411986 7-1-2005 |
257,260,261 |
4601 |
| .+ | F\I31O/2OO5 | Jl4r6sl1986 7-1-2005 |
259.262, 269e* 270 |
45-28 |
| 5 | FlI4849l2OOl | J/416s/1986 71,2005 |
259,26A,269ev, 270 |
45-28 |
| 6 | F1/4850i2001 | JI416211e86 7-1-2005 |
275.276,277 | |
| 7 | F1I4867l2OO | J/4164I1986 7-1-2005 |
257,260,26t | 46-01 |
| B | FlI486812OO | Jl416sl1986 7-t-2005 |
251to256 | /5-U+ |
| 9 | Ft I4869l2OO | J/4165/1986 7-1-2005 |
259 ,262,269,27t) | 45-28 |
| 10 | F\14870l2o0 | Jl4162l1986 7-1-2005 |
275,276,277 | 42-00 I |
| 11 | FrIt899 l2O0 | Jl4164l1986 7-1-2005 |
257,260, 261 | 46-01 |
| t2 | FLI4902l2OO | Jl4t63/1986 7-1-2005 |
251 to 256 | i'5-o4 I |
4 The Oper ative paragraph of the Orderpassed by the
Joint Collector is reproducedas under:-
"....'hus it is evidentthat the said landsare Waqf lands anc grant ofOccupancy Rights Certificateto individualr in respect ofWakf landsis not in order.
No ndividual is entitled toget any Occupancy Rights Cer rificate onsuch land and religiousinstitution alone is t ntitled toget OccupancyRights Certificerte' Hence the OccupancyRights Certificate rssuedby the Revenue I ivisionalOfficerRanga ReddyEast Divisionin File N,.(1) J1416311986dated7-1-2oos l2lJ I4r6t /1986 dated7-t-2oo1 (3) J I 4164 I 1986 dated 7-I-2OOS , J/416511986dated 7-1'2005 are set aside ,and theF evenueDivisional Officeris directed to issue \Occupancr Rights Certificate in the name of religious
-1
institutions only in lightof the above amended Act No' 19 of 1994....."
Act, L955 andit was set aside by ttre Joint Collector in Appeal withougranting any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. T reundisputed facts further reveal that genesis on the basisof which the Order was passed by the Joint Collectoris based on Notification dated 09'02'1989 issued by theWakf Board declaringthe lalds as wakf landsandearji'eralsothesameNotificationwassubjected tojudicialscr ltinybefore this Court' The learnedSingle Judge has allrwed the writ petitions on the ground that earlier also sane Notification was declaredby this Courta nullity in W.I.No.9378of 2009 decided on 06'02'2012' againstwh ichWrit Appeal was preferred i.e., W.A.No.1(10 of 2Ol2 and' the same was also dismissed on 07. 1 1.201:.
been set aside by the learned Single Judge andin those circumstances, the learned Single Judge wasjustified in allowing the writ petitions.
Notihcationdr,ted 09.02.1989 issued by the Wakl Board declaring theland in Survey No'253 to the extent of Acs.0.20gu rtassituated atMamidipallyVillage' SaroornagarI levenue Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as wakf land. Th: petitionercontended before this Court that one Smt. S.I 'S.Gowri purchasedthe land from one Peromoni Kon Laraiahunder a registered sale deed dated 23.06.1989.S rbsequently, Smt. S'P'S' Gowri sold the land to thepetitior:er vide sale deed dated 13'03'2008 and the documentwE spresented for registrationunder the provisions of t re RegistrationAct on 13'03'2008'However' the Sub Reg strar,Champapet, Ranga Reddy District (West) in spit': of repeatedrequests, did not registerthe aforesaid docr'ment. The petitioner preferred W'P' No 8480 of2oogtode:laretheactionoftheSubRegistrarinnot registering th:document bearing No 27 ol 2008' dated 13.03.2008a;arbitrary and illega1 and the said u'rit petition wasdisposed of by order dated23'O4'2OO9 directing theSub Registrar to process the documentfor registrationand incase ofnon-registration'to communicatethereasonstothepetitioner.Thepetitioner submittedretr resentation along with the order passed by this Courtt)theSub Registrar. However,the Sub order dated15.06.2009 refusing to-- Registrar Pas;ed an
register the document on theground thatthe property is a wakf property keeping inview theNotihcation dated Og.O2.1989. It is pertinent to notethat in another writ petition, i.e., W.P.No.9378 of 2009, by anorder dated O7.O9.2OO9, this Court has directedthe Sub Registrarto register the sale deed, whichwas also not being registered on account of Notification,dated 09.02.1989 and it was also observed that theregistration shall be subject to result of the writpetition. The writ petitioner, thereafter, has preferred thepresent writ petitionNo'20425of 2009 praying for issuance of an orderdirectingthe Sub Registrar to register theproperty andalso for declaring the Notification, dated 09.02.1989as arbitrary and opposed to iaw. Thus, in short, in thesecond batch of writ petitions, the Notification, dated09.02.1989 issued by the Wakf Board declaring the subjectlands as wakf lands is under challenge.
()
"Admitedly, uid-e notification dated09'02' 1989' the Waqf Board :asissued notihcation declaringthe lands in MamidipallyVillage as Waqf lands' The question as to u,hether the rotificationcouldhave been issued by the Waqf Board, basecon the survey conductedunder the Repeal Act' has fell forc, 'nsiderationbeforethis Hon'bleCourt and is no longer res intzgra.
ln l amilNadu Wakf Board (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Cor.rt heldas under:-
'In tLe absenceof propernotification undersub-section (2) of Secti, n 5 of theWakf Act, 1954, that the properties in question a e Wakfproperties, even if there is any survey report isoJ noavail and does not impressthe propertywith the characl :r ofa Wakfpropertylt confersno rightson the Wakf Boar< or theMuthawalito claimit as Wakfproperty'"
A earned SingleJudge of thisCourt' in W.P.No.25Ol 6of 2OO4,vide order,dated19 04'2012' at para 4, while dea..ngwith the same issue, has observed as under: "..... the i npugnedGazette notification, dated 17.10.2002, does notI tand to scrutiny in the eye of law as it rsa notification issuedundera repealedenactment'this Courtcan only say th rtthe said notification published in the Gazetteis a deadwood.'
Anc lher learnedSingle Judge of this Court'in W.P.No.196 Iol2012, vide order, dated 22'03'2016' observed asunder:
'Th: s Courtconsideredthesimilar issue in W.P.No.2S )76 of2OO4 relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners and wherein,this Court quashed the notiflcation under Act of1954 on the ground that Wakf Act'' 1954 is repealed ry Section112(1) of the Wakf Act,1995,and notifrcatio; rpublished inthe Gazette does not stand to scrutiny il theeye of 1aw,as it is a notihcationissued undera repealed :nactment.Inthis case also, admittedly the impugned notification isalso issued under Act of 1954 is repealed ty thepresent Act. Since the order in the said wdt a.-r petition h,.s become hnal andWakf Board is a party to it, the
l0
present issue is squarely covered by thejudgment of W.P.No.2074 of 2004....'
While dealing with the validity of the impugned Gazette Notification No.46-A, dated 15.1 1.2OO1, issuedby the State under theprovisions of the Wakf Act,1954, which has been repealed by the Wakf Act, 1995, this Court in W.P.No.33 133 of 2014, by order, dated 22.O9.2O16, held as under:
"45. In view of the rivalsubmissions,it isfrrst necessary to consider whether the conduct of surveyby a Survey Commissioner during the time whenthe WakfAct, 1954 was in force, withoutpublication of the same inthe Gazette under sub-Section(2) of Section 5 of the said Act, conferred any right on the 2na respondent or not. If the answer is !es', then such right issaved under sub-Section(2) of Section l12 and not othenvile.
ll
provided unlerSection27 of tineWakf Act' 1954 and decide whetherpal jcular propertyis wakf propertyor not and that decision isinal unless it is revoked or modified by a Civil Court, butt ris course of action had also not been adoptedby the WakfB< ard in that case. lt held that before hling the suit for recoveryof possession as providedin law' the Wakf Board should har efollowed the procedure as required under Sections 4,5 and 6 or 27 of the Wakf Act' 1954 If the suit properties a'e notincluded in the notification published under Sub-section(2) of Section 5 of the Act, steps should have been taken asp:ovidedunderSection27 ol the Act and only thereaJter asuit for possession could have been frledand not otherwise. Ittherefore affirmedthe decisions of the Courts below.
47 ,'he ratioof thisdecisionis that in t]:e absence of proper noti LcationunderSub-section92) of Section 5 of the Wakf Act, 1954that the properties in question are u'a-kf properties, even ifthere is zrnysurvey report of a Survey Commissiot er,the saidreport is of no avail and does not impress thepropertywith the characterof a wakf property'
t2
This Court in B.Gowra Reddg us, Gouernment o.f Andhra Prqdeshl while dealing with the very same notilication, dated 09.02.1989, at paragraph Nos.26, 29, 32 and 33 has held as under:
"26. A survey of various decisions referred to above would led to two issues, which have to be considered by this Court, viz., whether there was a contravention of the provision of Sections 4 to 6 of the Act and whether the writ petitions are maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
t (2002l. 3 AL"t 439
ll
Board and theWalfBoardis required to examinethe report and therea terpublish the list of Wakfs in the OfhcialGazette' If these ret uirementswerefulfilled, then the contentionof the learned C tunselfor the Wakf Board and the learned Governme:.t Pleaderwouldbe sustainable'When the pre- requisite I rrpublishing the Wakf is not fulfilled,then the question u :uld. remainWhetherthat can be challengedunder Article 22t, ofthe Constitutionof India or in a suit as is sought to becontended by the learned Counselfor the respondens.
l1
v.rious documents frled by both the Partiesin these matters, nothing has been established tosustain the contention tttat the enquiry was conducted as required under Section 4(3) of the Act. In such a situation, it cannot be said thatthe impugned Notification is binding on thepetitionersand accordingly, the petitioners are entitled to challenge thesame as it is illegal and not enforceable as far aspetitionersare concerned. Accordinlly, I have to reject the contentionraised on behalf of the Wakf Board and also the Governmentin this regard.
In A,P. State WakJ Board vs. HgderabadArchdioceses Society Archblshop House2, this Court whiledealing with the notification, dated 29.12.1988, atparagraph Nos.16 and 33to 36 has held as under:
:z 2010 SCC Online AP 1227
15
2)......
r, .....
33.,)nce itis establishedthat before notifying the property ar Wakfno noticeas such was issuedto the persons, w rose rightsa-re likely to be affected'they can always mai:.tain the *nit petitionquestioning the notihcation'
A lear redSingle Judgcof this Court' in W'P No 9378 of 2OO9 ,by orderdated,06 'O2 20 12, while dealingwith the very same notification,dated 09 02'1989' inrespectof ,Sy.Nos.3O2 rnd 303 of this very same village i'e Mamidipally \vitt.n.. und )rsimilarset of facts, has heldas under: \ -' \
16
"From this, it is clear that a detailedsurveyis required to be conducted. Thepublication of the notification must be soon, though not immediate, a-fter the survey. The reasonis that, any events, that occur between thedate of survey, and date of publication of the notificationwould renderthe very exercise futile. If any substantial developmenttakesplace between the two events, the survey conductedearliercannot at all constitute thd basis forpublication.Evenotherwise, unreasonable delay would defeat the veryobjective, underlying the provision.
It was way back in theyear 1960, that thesurvey in respect of the land in Sy.Nos.299 to306 of Mamidipally village was conducted under Section4 of the WakfAct' 1954. The publication rvas made only in theyear 1989.In the period of three decades, that has intervened,several legislative and administrative changeshave taken place. The Inams Act came into force, and in thecourseof its implementation, the ORCswere granted in respect of the lands. Had any survey beenconductedimmediately preceding the publication in the year 1989, the factthat the petitioners or their predecessor;s in title had inpossessionand enjoyment of the property, as absoluteownersor were issued ORCs; could have beennoticed, and issuance of notification would certainly have become doubtful.By no stretchof imagination, the survey conductedin the year 1960 can be said to be the basis forpublicationof a notificationin the year 1989. Therefore, the notifrcationdated 09.02.1989 cannot be said to be inconformity with theprovisionsof the Wakf Act.
This Court, in B.Gowra Reddy's case(sura)dealt with the manner in which the notificationunderchallenge herein was issued, and expressed theview that itdoesnot accord with law. The principle laid doum therein covers the factsof this case also.
The third contention arises on account of the objection raised by the 2.d respondent, the effect that thepetitioners cannot challenge the notification at this stage, whenits right to file a suit under the Act is barred.
The question as to u,hether the limitation and other aspects covered by Section 4 to 6 of the Wakf Act would apply in relation to proceedings initiated by thirdparties also,was 'dealtwith by the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in Board of Muslim
t7
Wat<fs, Rajaithan v. RadhaKishan ll979l 2 SCC468)' lt u'as held that tt :notifrcation wouldbecomefina'l and conclusive as betweenthe Wakf Board and the Mutawalli' on t].e one hand, andt he persons interested in the wakf' on the other' but notage inst the persons, who are not interestedin the wakf. The I etitionersherein did not claim any interest in the wa-kI concer.ted.
For t Ie foregoingreasons,the writ petition is a-llowed' as prayedfc :."
The order,lated 06 O2'2O12, passedby the learned Single Judge inW. '.No.9378of 2OO9has been confirmed by the Division Ben:hof this Court in W A'No'1010of 2012 vide judgment dar ed 07.1 1.2013,and the same has become final'
Recent y whiiedealing with the lands insurvey Nos.302 anc3O3 of the verysamevillage'this Court in W.P.No. 1442 of2O2O,vide order dated 11'022020'relying on thejudgn ent of the learned Single Judge in W'P'No'9378 of. 2OO9, dat:d'06.02.2012, whiledealing with the lands in survey Nos.312 and 303 of Mamidipallyvillage' has held as under:
"In tieu.t of the abouejudgmentof the learnedSingle Judge, the 'bjectiontakenby the 4th respondent with regordto publication tf thenottfication,doted09'02'1989' notifging the subject lanI' as utakf land, has no tegs to stand' as the said notiJications hetd to be not in conformitgwith the Prouisions of the Act.
Hau't 19 tothe factsand circumstancesof the case and the submis;tonsof the leamedcounsel andorderpossedbg this Court,uhich is referredto aboue' ond J'or the reasons olike, thepresenttunt petition is atlotued' ttnd the3'd respondenlis directed to receiue anrl registerthe documenti e ' sale deed )'resented"bA the petitioner tn respect of the subject land,proui' |ed the sameis in ord'er as per the prouisionsof the IndianSta qAct,1899, and' the RegistrationAct' 1908' and the Rulesn .ade there under'"
Mor:over, allthe abovereferred judgments of this Courthave)ecomefinalandtilldatetheyarenotSetaside by the Hon'l1e Supreme Court and thereforehold good'
lu
In view of the law laid down by this Court aswell as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referredjudgments, this Court is of the opinion that the notilication,dated 09.02.1989, issued by the Waqf Board is one without jurisdiction and the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly the second batch of writpetitions are allowed and the notification dated 09.02.1989, is set aside.
Coming to the first batch of writ petitionsfiled questioning the order of the Joint Collector, the operative portion of the impugned order dated 25.02.2006 setting aside the orders of the RDO reads as under:
".... Ihrr" it is evidentthat the saidlands are Waqf lands and grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate toindividuals in respect of WaJ<f lands is not in order.
No individual is enritled toget any OccupancyRights Certificate on such land and religious institutionalone is entitled to get Occupancy Rights Certificate.Hence the Occupancy Rights Certificate issued by theRevenue Divisional Officer Ranga Reddy East Division inFile No.(l) Jl4163/1986 dated 7-1-2005 l2l J1416211986dated7-i- 2005(3) Jl4164l1986 dated 7-1-2005 &\Jl4t65ll986dated 7-|-2OOS are set aside and the Revenue DivisionalOfhceris directed to issue Occupancy Rights Certiflcatein the nameof religious institutions only in light of the above amendedAct No.19 of 1994....."
A perusal of the above portion reveals that the Joint collector has suo mofo taken up the issue and while setting aside the orders of the RDO has granted ORC in favour of the Waqf Board, solely based on the Gazette Notification dated 09.02. i989. Neither the material on record nor the counters filed before this Court reveal that either the legal representatives of the Inamdars or the persons, in whose favour the RDO has granted ORCs, were put on notice nor given an opportunity of hearing with rcgard to the suo moto taking up of the case or that reliance was being placed on the Gazette Not.ihcation dated 09.02.1989 while passing the order, dated 25.02.2006. This Court as well as the Hon'ble_._
19
Supreme Co rrt incatenaof caseshave held that the principles of oaturaljustice are inviolableand fundamental to the rights ;fthe parties to be heard before any orders are passed and t le Courtsunder Article226 of t]ne Constitution of India can exercisejudicial power to reviervthe decisions made by thesubordinates/ quasijudicialauthorities to see whether the rrinciplesof natural justice are violatedor not and wheneve u'arrantedthe Courtrvill step-in to correctthe same. Thep,,wer of judicialrevierv has been held to formthe basic structl Lre of theConstitutionand the said power cannot be cortrolledor exclucledby any provisionof Statute or Rules ma( ethereunder.Therefore,the contentior-rof the learned Stan, lingCounselsthat the onlyremedyavailable to the petitione; s isto approachthe Waqf Tribunal for setting aside the Wa, Lf Notification,if they are aggrievedby the same, cannot be ct untenancedancl the same has to be rejected' The Court w rileexercisingpor,'erunder Article 226of' the Constitution>f India is not denuded of the power to deal with the orders oJthe JointCollectorto see whetherthe orders that arepa;sed are inaccordance with the procedure establishedL /law or whether there was any violation of the principles ol naturaljustice.Eventhoughthe learned StandingCo rnsel for the Waqf Board has relied on the judgment oi the Hon'bleSupreme Court inWhirlpool Corporation(supra),but, as a matter of fact' in the said decision, theHon'ble Supreme Court has heldas under:
"tJnclt r Article'226of thcCorrstitution' thc llighCotrrt' having : 3gal'dto the iacts ol ttlc c'rse' llas it(liscrelionto entertaitornottoelltefttlillari,ritpetitiotl,Butti-reHlg)rColtrt has imp' sed uponitselfcertaill restrictions ouc of r'vhich is ti.rat if an ef :ctiveandefltcacious remedyis available' theHigh Court u )u'ldnot normallyexerciseits jurisdiction llutthe alternati'e:'emedyhasbeencollsistenll)'heldbythisCoLlrtnot to operaLe asa bar in at least threccontingencies'namely' where tl e writpetition has been hledfor the enforcementof any of the Frndamental Rightsor rvheretherehas been a violation of the >rincipleofnatr'rraljustice orivhere the order or -lproceed rgs are rvholly without judsdiction or the vires ofan Act is cl allenged"
20
Thus, mere existence of an alternative remedy will not by itself take away the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to exercise itspower to review the decision made by thequosi judicial authority.
Moreover, in State Bank oJ India us. M,S. Basi & Ors,3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the orderis liable to be set aside if no opportuniry of hearing is afforded to the parties who are adversely affected.
Further, irr Mqriamma Rog os. Indion Bank & Ors.a, the Hon'ble Supreme Court hasheld thateven if an alternative remedy is available, if violation of theprinciples of natural justice is alleged, the writpetition is maintainable and the High Court can interfere.
Therefore, the contention of the learnedStanding Counsel that it is only the Waqf Tribunalthat can go into the validily or otherwise of the Gazette Notification cannotbe countenanced and the same is rejected.The impugned order passed by the Joint Collector setting aside the orderof the RDO granting ORCs without putting theparties onnotice and without affording them an opportunity ofhearing, violates the well recognized principles of naturaljusticei.e' audi alteram partem and the same cannot becountenanced and is liable to be set aside on thissole ground.
As seen from the record, the only material before the Joint Collector was the Waqf Notification, dated 09.02.1989, and admittedly the Waqf Board was not aparty to the said proceedings nor there was any other material to contend that the subject lands are Waqf lands. In view of the fact that the notification dated 09.02.1989 itself has been held to be invalid and unsustainable and is set aside by this Court in the second batch of writ petitions, the order of the Joint Collector granting ORC in favour of the Waqf Board is also liable to be set aside and the same is accordingly set aside.
] (2004) 11 SCC 347
4 (2009) 16 SCC r87
2l
Howt ver, taking intoconsideration the arguments putforth by tl e WaqfBoard, this Courtis of the opinionthat the ends ofj rsticewouldbe met if the matteris remanded back to the. ointCollector. Accordingly,the first batchof writ petitions areallou'ed and remandedback to the Joint Collector (no'tdesignated as Arlditional Collector (Revenue) to decide thenatterafreshduly takinginto considerationthe above observi.tionsmade by this Court.This entire exercise shall be com tletedas expeditiouslyas possible, preferably' within aperir dof three monthsfrom the date of receipt of a copy of this,,rder. It is needless to mention that the Waqf Board, if it chooses,can implead itself beforethe Joint Collector ancplaceany other materialbesides notilication dated 09.02.1989, rvhichhas already been set aside,to buttress theitcase that the lands in question are Waqf lands and the sam, shall alsobe taken into considerationby the Joint Collect rr whilepassing the orders on merits' It is needless to rr entionthat all the parties shall be put on notice and affordecreasonableopportunity of hearing,belore passing of th: orders. Itis also made clear that pending the appeals before the Joint Collector, if the parties alienateor change ther a.ture of the lands, the same will be subjectto the final orde'slikely to be passed by the Joint Collector'and in case anyi dverseorders are passed, the parties shall not claim anYeqr .ities.
Insofar as thirdbatch of rvrit petitionsfiled aggrievedby the Notifrcatirn issued uncler Sectiorl 22-A of the registration Act are cor cerned,invierv of the fact that the said notilicationt as been issuecl basedon thc Notification clated Og.O2.Lg8g: ssued under the Waqf Act, rvhichhas already been set asi,te by this Court, the Notilication issued under Section 22-Aof the RegistrationAct has to be necessarilyset aside and th,same is accordingly set aside' Accordingly'the thircl batchc I writ petitionsare allowed'
Accordinglr, all the s'rit petitionsare allor"'ed' to the extent indicateclabi ve.,,
27
23
wasjustified nquashing the Notification issuedunder Section 22-A<f the RegistrationAct' Therefore'this Court does not findt ny reasonto interfere with the Order passed by the learnedSingleJudge'
SD/.CH,VE NKATESWARULU DEPUTY REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY' .--
SECTION OFFICER
To, 1. One CC to Sri Ab r Akram Advocate IOPUCI 2. One CC to Sri Sa GangadharChamarty Advocate-[OPUC] 3. Two CC.it GF i or Rduenue,High Court for the Siateof Telangana[OUT] 4. One CC to Sri K.lanakirami Reddy, Advocate (OPUC) 5. One CC to Sri C. iudeshAnand, Advocate(OPUC) 6. One CC to Sri O. ManoharReddy,Advocate (OPUC) 7. One CC to Sri IVlc rd. AzeemuddinFarooqui,Advocate (OPUC) 8. One CC to Sri Mc rd. VasiAhmed, Advocate(OPUC) 9. One CC to Sri M. VehdiHussain, Advocate (OPUC) 10. One CC to Sri Sv rd JaweedAbas Nadeem, Advocate (OPUC) 11.One CC to Sri G. Shiva Kumar Goud,Advocate (OPUC) 12.One CC to Sri M.A. AshfaqMohiuddin,Advocate(9t.q9) 13. One CC to M/s. E.raradwajAssociates. Advocate(O-?UC^) 14. One CC to Sri As rok ReddyKanathala, Advoc,ate.(OPUC) '1 5. One CC to Sri Di< a ViiayaKumar, Advocate (OPUC) ^ 16. One CC to Sri D. Iagdn-MohanReddy,Advocate-(OPUC) 1 7. One CC to Sri V. /e-nkata Ramana,Advocate (OPUC) 18. One CC to Sri Kir hore Rai,Advocate (OPUC) 19. One CC to Sri Re su MahenderReddy,Advocate (OPUC) 20. One CC to Sri M( hdi HussainKhan,Advocate (OPUC) 21 .One CC to Sri B. /enkat RamaRao, Advocate (OPUC) 22.One CC to Sri Pr, Lbhakar Peri ,Advocate(OPUC) 23.Two CD Copies 24. One Spare copy MBC
k]!
39
HIGH COURT
DATED: 1211,,112021
i i.ik, S 14, €
I o
//"
//a
r /-)
lio
I I0rcBa
ll '-:
t''.
\-,7,
..*
COMMON .JUDGMENT
WA Nos. 31 8, 31 9, 320, 321, 322, 326, 327, 328, 329, 356, 357, 360, 361, 363, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 373,375,376, )82,383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 392, 393, -rx.396.397.398.,r00,.lo2 A\D 428 oF- 2021
DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEALS
WITHOUT COSTS
d
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Writ Appeals challenging single judge orders dismissing writ petitions praying for quashing of Wakf notifications should be dismissed given prior judgments.
Whether the impugned orders in the first batch of writ petitions allowing petitions and remanding to Joint Collector warrant interference.
Whether writ appeals in the second and third batches regarding notifications and registration prohibitions require interference.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Tamil Nadu Wakf Board v. Nathija AmmalReferred¶1045
TAMIL NADU WAKF BOARD v. NATHIJA AMMAL (DEAD) BY L.Rs. Etc. (AIR 2002 SC 402) · Who else cites this
Suayed Ali v. A.P. Wakf BoardReferred¶1073
SUHAYED ALI v. A.P. WAKF BOARD, HYDERABAD (1998) 2 SCC 642 · Who else cites this
Board of Muslim Wakfs v. Radha KishanReferred¶1081
Board of Muslim Wakfs, Rajaithan v. Radha Kishan (1979) 2 SCC 468 · Who else cites this
Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram PanchayatReferred¶1073
PUNJAB WAKF BOARD v. GRAM PANCHAYAT (2000) 2 SCC 121 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
TeLANGANA STATE WAKF BOARD
VARIETIES OF INDIVIDUAL PETITIONERS
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
A. RAJASHEKER REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
