Allowed

Raghunandan Chary v. Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board

Telangana HC4 Feb 2025CRP/6099/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against a Wakf Tribunal decree directing the defendant to hand over 1,500 square yards of graveyard land and remove buildings. The High Court held the Board failed to prove encroachment, as no survey or conclusive material showed construction within Sy.No.8, and set aside the judgment.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Tribunal judgment set aside; CRP allowed; no costs; pending miscellaneous applications closed.

Raghunandan Chary Vs Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 6099 0F 2012

¶6

Petition filed under Section 83(9) of WAKF ACT, of the Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the order dated 10.10.2012 passed in OS No. 85 of 2004 passed by the Hon'ble AP State Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Raghunandan Chary, S/o. Ramulu Chary R/o. H.No. 618 Balapur Village Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

¶9

...PETITIONER/PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board, Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer Haj House Building Nampally Hyderabad

¶12

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶13

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2012(CRPMP. NO :8104 OF 20121

¶14

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 all further proceedings in OS No. 85 ot 20047 passed by the Hon,ble Ap State Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad.

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶16

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 receive the photographs as additional documents in the above CRp No.6099 of 2012.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: MS. SAMHITHA NTMMALA REP.

¶18

SRI. VIVEK JAIN

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent: SRl. MIR MASOOD KHAN

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

I Il I 1

¶22

i 1 I !

¶23

, I It II , { { t I iI i

¶24

¶25

:,'r*:-t Y

¶26

THE HoNOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICEN'TUKARAMJI} clvll- RE^{VISIONPETITI ONNo.6099 0F_2012}

¶27

ORDER

¶28

Heard ''Vls;^{Siamhitha Nimmala' learnedcounsel'representing} Mr.Vivek^{Jainlerrlrned counselon record for the revisionpet tioner'ln} spite of^{listing :he matter under the caption'For Orrjers" the} respondent^{cltor;: to remain absent-}

¶29

This rev'r;^{crn petitionhas been filed assailing the dr:creeand} judgment datecl^{' O 1O2O12in O S No 85 of 2OO4' on the file of the} Andhra^{Prad,;'sh State Wakf Tribunal' Hyderabad (for shorl 'the Wakf} Tribunal')

¶30

The s-rl^{rvas filed by the respondent/plaintiff (W'aqfBoard)} (hereinafte''tir:^{r:laintiff') with a prayerfor recoveryof Iacart peaceful} possessiorr^{r, t1e graveyard, situated in Sy No 8' adnreasuringAc'1-} 10^{gts.,s'tralecl at BalapurVillage' Saroor Nagartv4anrial'Ranga} Reddy District^{b'y way of direction to the revisionpetitoner/defendant} (hereinafte'r^{'tttr: defendant') and for mandatoryiniunr:tionto remove} the structtlre(i^{rtade in the graveyard to the extent of 1'500 square} yards in Siy^{Nc.3, situated at BalapurVillage' Saroor NallarMandal'} (for short^{'thr: subiectland'). The Wakf Tribunal vide lhe impugned} judgment dr:c"tlr:d the suit^{by observing that the revtsionp':ditioner had}

¶31

--- j ilr.arr,B@tt t. r :':.i, . -r':ta: "r_'

¶32

NTR" J C.R.P.No.6099 of2012

¶33

encroached 1,500 square yards of graveyard land and directed the defendant to hand over vacant possession of the subject land. Further, granted mandatory injunction to remove three buildings constructed within the area of^'l ,500 square yards within 60 days from the date of the^judgment. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant preferred this revision

¶34

a.(i). The plaintiff's case in brief is that in Sy.No.8 at Balapur Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, there is a graveyard admeasuring Ac.1-'10 gts., which is registered Wakf property and the plaintiff came to know through their lnspector/Auditor that the defendant had occupied graveyard by removing some graves and proceeding with the construction. Whereupon, a direction was given to its task force for inspection and report and a reporUEx.A-3 was submitted, whereby it came to their knowledge that the defendant is going ahead with the construction within the extent of 1,500 square yards. Thus, a letter/Ex.A-4 was addressed to the [Vlandal Revenue Officer for survey and to demarcate the graveyard. However, the request remained unattended. Thus, filed the suit seeking possession and mandatory injunction.

¶35

4.(ii). On the other hand, the defendant in written statement denied the qlaintifFs^{contention and the allegation of occupationof any part of the}

¶36

\ \

¶37

re;,",r:'r:El: -^{1Y. mer.}

¶38

.,1R, J C.R P...tr, 6099^{of 2012}

¶39

¶40

¶41

graveyard ffurllt l€)ss making any construction.^{He had pleraded that} the construction^s a^{house in the plot purchased by hirn in Sy.No'7,} from the pattadiu one B.Narsimha Rao.^{He specificallyple'adedthat} 70 square !a-crri n^{Plot No.8} in^{Sy.No.7is distinctfrom the survey} number clairn':r1 by the^{plaintiff. lt is alsohis case tha in 2004' the} Revenue depi'rrtntr:nt through^{lVlandalSurveyorconducted s lrveyand} demarcated tlrer l>r:undaries^{of Sy.No.B i.e. plaintiff's claime<J property} and also the h c^{u r} laries were^{fixed and he is not in possess on of any} part of Sy.Nr: l lhus, the^plaintiff is not entitled^{for the decree}

¶42

4(iii). The Tritrural having considered^{the rivalclaims framed following} issues for trial

¶43

lArh'=ther the plaintiff is entitled for recovery lf^p:lssesslon a to trandatory injunction.

¶44

Tt wt at relief?

¶45

4(iv) Durinly^'r,it , the^{plaintiffAlVaqf} Board^{got examinecl lts lnspector} from its Audit Cr'1ir;e as PW-1 and^got marked^{Exs.A-1 to A-(:i On the} other hand, t rr: clefendant^got examined^{himselfas frW-.l and got} marked Exs B-' tc B-3.

¶46

4(v). The Tril>unal on considering the materials^{placedrln ri:)cord} and by observinly thert^the material filed by the^plaintiff and the adrnission of defendant as to^{,lrnstruction,} which is making out cons:ruclion within

¶47

kk-r-*

¶48

NTR, J C.RP.No.6099 of 2012

¶49

¶50

the area of 1100 square yards in two buildings and another part is under construction and as the plaintiff had established that the portion constructed and under construction was encroached by the defendant, held that the defendant is liable to hand over the possession of the vacant land by removing the constructions.

¶51

ln appeal, Iearned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant (hereinafter'the defendant') would submit that the materials placed by the respondenVplaintiff (hereinafter 'the plaintiff) are falling short to prove the contended fact that there was encroachment of 1500 square yards by the defendant. She further pleads that the plaintiff had made a vague claim in so far as suit relief is concerned even in the plaint. That apart, though there is no dispute as to ownership of the plaintiff to the extent of Ac.1 -01 gts., in Sy.No.8, it is incumbent on the plaintiff to establish that part of i.e. 1 ,'1 00 square yards of that property has been occupied or encroached by the defendant. None of the documents including the report of task force is making out of the fact that the defendant is in occupation of any part of the ptaintiff's land/graveyard_ Without clinching that fact, the Wakf Tribunal, merely on the evidence of PW-1 that, the construction is near the boundary of their graveyard, recording conclusion that the defendant had encroached into the plaintiffs property is unsustained. Furthermore, the plaintiff could have got surveyed the properties to resolve the dispute. However, without

¶52

¶53

1t--: _-,-ri, rttitt"',:. ..,

¶54

]V7R, / t .tl l'..,t t;099 of 2012

¶55

¶56

such an exercis:()^{filing the suit wouldbe a prematureactioll and the} Wakf Tribtrn a^{without consideringthese essential aspects} unreasonabl/ de,r:reed^{the suit. Thus, prayedfor re-app'reciation and} to set aside^{th,: inttrugnedjudgment.}

¶57

I have'^{;;rr,:fully consideredthe submissionsand pe'usedthe} materials on^rr)c:r)'rj

¶58

ln the abcvr: contentions^{of the defendant, the asoeclsemerge} for determinrat ort are

¶59

1 l/hetlter the^plaintiff had^{esfab/rsherl'he} etloro?chment of the defendant^{over its propefty'}

¶60

z t/h,tther the Wakf Tribunal had^propt'rly ap;tr=ciated the materials/evidence^{placed by lhe} p )t1ies to arrive at conclusions in the Sutt?

¶61

Tt nt,at relief?

¶62

B. Point No.1: Admittedly, the^{plaintiffh;ad} rotilied^Wakf

¶63

property i6 $v.tr,1,1.$ to an extent of Ac.'1-01^{gts., situated:;l Balapur} Village. Th: derfendant's contest^{is that his property Iies arljacent to} Sy.No.7 anl rrt^part of^{graveyard has been occupiedby himas}

¶64

contested in tlre^r;uit. The Gazette^{Publication/Ex A-1 is subi;tantiating} that the^pl aintifl in Sy.No.8 is^{having graveyardwith ;,t specific} boundaries rrd tte tMutawalli of the^{property is the \A1akf Board}

¶65

Ttxx::wffie1

¶66

!t tt^..:.:".*ra; . ,,a,t;a'-',

¶67

NTR, J C.R.P.No.6099 oJ20l2

¶68

¶69

lt is also clear by the pleadings that the ptaintiff is not claiming any property in Sy.No.7. lt is clear by the entries in the Wakf Gazette that northern western portion the Waqf property is bounded by Sy.No.7.

¶70

As the specific claim of the plaintiff is that the defendant had encroached Wakf Board property, the burden is on it to prove that fact.

¶71

To substantiate the claim, the plaintiff through pW-.| got marked the report of the task force/Ex.A-3. The entries in Ex.A-3 are referring to the spot inspection conducted by them and the fact that they have noticed construction of the house by the defendant, which was at the stage of slab level and their enquiry revealed that the construction is being carried out in his patta land i.e. in Sy.No.7 and theiradvisetothe defendant that to stop construction till a joint survey is conducted and in the report they have recommended Chief Executive Officer of the Wakf Board to address a letter to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Saroor Nagar, for joint survey in respect of Sy.Nos.7 and B of Balapur Village.

¶72

ln consequence, the Chief Executive Officer, Wakf Board, had addressed a letter/Ex.A-4 wherein requested for deputing the Mandal Surveyor for demarcation of S.Nos.7 and 8 along with Wakf Board '.$urveyors for taking further action. Ex.A-S is another letter from the

¶73

\ \

¶74

.TR, J

¶75

r-. ]' r^{|t.6A99 of2012}

r:-'1ei;.-,f

District Rev,:nLrr: Cfficer to^{the Assistant Commissicner of Wakfsfor} conducting sL rv€,/ of^{the spot and affix the boundiaries of the burial} ground and tr trke all necessary^{preventivemeasureslhe other} material^plar;ed i:;^{photographs (8 in number)iEx.A-6.}

¶80

A carr:frrl r:ading of these^{materialsis indicatingthat trough the} construction tnerrlr: by the defendant is^{contended to be within the} graveyard ol:hr: plaintiff, i.e., in Sy.No.8, this f,act remained inconclusive ancl unconfirmed. lt is^pertinent to^{note ttrat in the} cross-exam n;ltilr , the lnspector of the^{plaintiff/PW-} 1^{made a} categorical starte rrnent that the under construction^{hous;eof the} defendant ir;^r)n lhe boundary of the^{graveyard. The srrme assertion} has been refl,a,:t,:d in the defendanUDW-'l^'s evidence. A^<.umulative reading of^r her materials placed by the respondt:nt/tr:,laintiff^is demonstratirg :hat in regard to the dispute as to encroachnrent,^there was comm Jr ir;at on for conducting^joint survey, bu' nc: material including the re:1r,rrt of the task force/Ex.A-3 made any^r;onclusive observation tlrzl the construction work of the defendant is^within the premises of grarrr.'yard or falls within the Sy.No.8.

¶81

13 On the o:trr-,r hand, the documents^{filed by ilhe} Ceferndant i.e. sale deed/E:x Et- I administrative sanction for^{constru()tiorr} and the certification/E;<i; [].2 and B-3 are referring to the constructon of the

¶82

¶83

-..^{-:-::r,&,ri::-!sL& .t .i::itt rsii;t!} '.r--

¶84

&f:.-"',:;,I1'-l:.

¶85

NTR, J C.R.P.No.6099 of 201 2 8

¶86

revision petitioner/defendant in Plot No.8 of Sy.No.7. Therefore, the plaintiff placed materlals before the Wakf Tribunal are evidently falling short to make out the fact of defendant's encroachment and the positive evidence placed by the defendant that he is making construction under proper permission from the Grampanchayath, Balapur, is within Sy.No.7, which is within distinct survey number. That being the factual position, the conclusion that can be drawn is that the plaintiff had failed to establish the foundational fact that the defendant had encroached or the defendant's constructions are within the graveyard land or Sy.No.8.

¶87

Point Nos.2 and 3: For the aforesaid reasons, in the absence of material evidence, the Tribunal recording finding that the defendant had encroached 1500 square yards of plaintiffs property stands unsustainable. ln consequence, directing the defendant to hand over vacant possession or removing the buildings cannot be accepted.

¶88

Given these circumstances, it shall be held that the Wakf Tribunal gravely erred in considering the material evidence in proper perspective and arrived at unfounded conclusions. On account of this, the impugned^judgment is liable to be and is accordingly set aside. ln effect, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned

¶89

i;I R, .l (:.ll 1..'o 6099 o/ 2012

¶90

¶91

judgment date,rc 1).10.2012 in O.S.No.85 of 2004 s set a:;ide No

¶92

costs

¶93

Pendirrg rrriscellaneous applications, if any, shall st;and^closed

¶94

P.PADMANABHA REDDY &EPIJTY^REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECI-ION OFFICER

To,

The Andhra [)r rlesh State Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad.

¶99

One CC trr SFt VIVEK JAIN Advocate [OPUC]

¶100

One CC trr lillt N4lR MASOOD KHAN Advocate [OPUC]

¶101

W 4. Two CD^(;olie,s,.

HIGH COURI'

DATED:04n2!.i2025

ORDER

CRP.No.6099 of 2012

ri \tii SLi
a
f.('i'
2 6 ili! 16
)'t
D
\i

¶108

ALLOWING'I'HE CIVIL REVISION^PETITIOhI

¶109

(,
1
1
1rn
l
,1

¶110

Raghunandan Chary v. Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghunandan Chary v. Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kapil Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd., Warangal Vs B. Bhavaneeshwar

The Cotton Corporation of India Ltd.Bm Vs Balaji Cotton Industries and Others

The Commissioner Vs G.Lava Kumar and 7 Others

B Seetarama Reddy, Ranga Reddy Dist Vs K Narapa Reddy, Secunderabad

The Principal Accountant General (Audit) Vs The Accountants General Office Employees Co-operative Housing Society Limited

A.P.Transmission Corporation Ltd., Vs Modu Vijaya and Other