Civil revision against a Wakf Tribunal decree granting perpetual injunction to plaintiffs as defacto Mutawallis over waqf land attached to Dargah Moula Ali. The High Court found pre-1960s pahanis proved the Dargah as pattadar while defendants' records dated only from 1995, and dismissed the Revision.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
TUESDAY .THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 700 OF 2021
Petition Under Section 83 (9) Wakf Act 1995 aggrieved by the Judgment and decree in O.S.No. 92 of 2O16 ( OId O.S.No. 138 of 2006 | dated 26-03-2021 on the file of the Telangana State Wakf Tribunal at Hyderabad.
Between:
...PETITIONERS/ Defendants
AND
...RESPONDENTS/ Plaintiffs 1 to 5
IA NO: 1 OF 2021
Petition unde. Section 151 CPC praying that in the circunrstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the judgment and decree in O.S. No.9212016 (old O.S.No.138/2006) d1.2610312021 on the file of Telangana State Wakf Tribunal at Hyderabad, pending disposal of the CRP
Counsel for the Petitiorrer: SRI DONT|NENI SRINIVASA RAO, Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 5 : SRI F. VENUGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL, ON BEHALF OF MS. KRISHNA KEERTHANA
Counsel forthe Respondent No.5: SRI FARAH AZAM KHAN, SC FORWAQF BOARD
The Court made the foliowing ORDER:
{;
HON'BLI' SRI JU$TICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
CML REVISIOII PETITION No. 700 OF 2021
ORDER:
This Revision is direcled against thejudgment and dccrcc of the Telangana State Wakf Tribunai at Hyderabad in O.S.No. 92 of 2016 (oid O.S.No. 138 of 2006) dated 26.O3.2A21. '2Sincc, admittedl1., there u'as interim order of sfa/us qr.io gran ted during pendencl. of suit, which .subsisted till disposal cf the suil, ::,hile aCmitting lhis Revision on 24.06.2021 , tnis Cor-irt dir:ected both the parties to maint:rin sialus quo as on datc ir-i aii rcspects till disposal of the Revision. 3. Delenciants in lhe suit are petitioners and plain';ifis are responclents herein. The suit r,,,as liied for grant of perpetual in-jur-rciion iirslraining ileiendarts I lo 4 lrom interfering r'r.itir possession ancl cnjol-nent of plaintills over part and pai-cel of Mouia Ali Chiila in Surve. I'lo. 511 ard its aatached r.vnqf lanC in Surve.,r Nos. 21 a:ntl 22 admeasuring Acs.5.33 guntas situatcd alChevelja Vrllage and Ir4aridal, Ranga Reridy District- For the sakc of conveniencc, parties herein trre relerred to as they are arrayed irrt"he suit.
2
+. l1-re czrsc of plaintifis is that there is a cl-iila 'Moula A1i' got att:iched to the suil land. It is stated that one Lal It4ohammecl cf Cher.,elia Village had six sons; out of them, the1"t plaintiff is onll'alive, other piaintiifs and defendants l, 3 and 4 are grand-,:hildren or great grand-chilciren of lateLal Moharnmcd. It is also stated, Lal Mohammed u.as actingas de facto-Mutas'al1i of the suit Chilla anci rendering necessan' services and afte r his de ath, thc 1"t plaintiff iasbee n discharging the duties as such. It is -..laied, taking arlvantage of his o1d a.ge. celendants 1 lo 4. rvho aie .riosel]' reltited to him and assisting irl r-lischargrng lhc dulits.: j' lv{iit.rrr:r1li. :rrc trying to alienate 1i-re ri aqf propci'i'.
According to piaintifis, irr thc pahari fur 1960-61, the name of D:rigah Hazrali-i ivloulz.l A1i is ilotcC in Colur:rn Nos. i i ar-rd 12 as K1-raitedar ancl patraciar- like s'isc iir 1;irhanis for i9A7-8A, i99O 9i, but hor,,,"cver, in the pah:rni lor l!)94 95, the names of tu/o sons of lat"e Jahan Eir t,iz. fulohd. Bashcer and Mohd. Nazr:cr v,.ere shoq'n as khatedars / pattaclais in respect of suit land; again in 2000-O i , pahani shcu.cd thc names of riefendants f io4 and some othcrs as l<hatedars/ pattaCars and
\
-l
/
{-}
Survey Nos. 21 and 22 were divided into seven bits and defendants I to 4 started interfering with plaintiffs during cultivation operations though the suit iand is in the joint possession and en joyment of de facto Mutawallis and successors of La1 Mohammed.
Taking advantage of entry oi their names in revenue records during the years stated supra, Defendants 1 to 4 have been trying to meddle with the property on which both plaintiffs and Delendants 1 to 4 have responsibilify to protect. 5. On the other hand, Defendants I to 4 admitted the relationship be tween the parties, existence of Chiila Moula Ali in Survey No.6/ 1, but denied the same got attached with the suit land. It is stated, lald covered by Survey Nos. 2 1 and 22 is two to three kilometres ar,r,ay from Chilla and late Mohd. Jahangir, father of the 1.t defendant and grandlather of Defendalts 3 and 4 was the original pattadar and possessor of the said land whose name uras recorded in revenue records. After his demise, it is claimed, names of his two sons Mohd. Basheer and Mohd- Nazeer (the lst defendant) were entered in revenue records. The 2"a defendant is the wife of Mohd. Basheer and
/
.1
Defendants 3 i,rnd 4 arc his sons. Aftcr thc deaih of Mohd. Basheer in 1995, iandq..as mutated inl,]re nan-ies of l)cicnCants 2 ia 4, u'hile the share ol ihe I 't dcfcnciant i-emained intact. Thus, it is ciairred, defendants 1 to 4 are absolute c,r'iners and possessors tlf the suit lanci. O.S.No. 1a 1 of 20O5 filed b1, onc of thc daughters of late l\4ohcl. Jahangir in rerspect oj' suit land againsr Delendants I to 4 ended in ccmpromise and fir-ra1 de crec r,vas passed,rn 29.09.20O5 under u,hich legai heirs oi late Mohd. Jahangir stood cntitled for each share o[ the suit iand. Since i 9921. namcs oi Dcfe ndants 1 to 4 hale be en re ileuLecl in Lhe rrrvcnLic ;-er:c,ris e-en to the knor,.'iedge oi pl:li:riiiis.
7 . in the orcier uncle r Rci is ion , rt r s obsi r-ved that Lx.Ri2 is.:i:rtified copy of the Chesaia lrahani lbr' 1955-J8. vrl..ercin Darg:rh llzt. Moula Aii was shor,,'n in c-oiurnn lio. i i and in Column I 2 ii is rnentioned as 'pr3t-13' ior both Sul'i'e..1 h"os.21 and 22. In ]fx.Bi3 and Ex.B 14 also simiiar cirtrics ilere irtade confirming tirat Dargah Hazratb Mourla A1i is the p:rtt::dar oI thc suit 1and, thus all the revenue records,'e'hich are issrrr:d hy the
) ) -
.4r.1
_5
ll
revenue authorities including Exs.A1 to ,{3 and trxs.B12 to 814 clinchingly establish that suit land is in possession of piaintiffs as the defacto mutawallis and the suit land is waqf property. Nothing was elicited in the cross-examination of p.W.1 or D.W.2 to discard or disbelieve their evidence u,hich is fully supported by the documents referred to above.
It is further observed that Ex.Bl to 84 are the pattadar passbooks issued in the name of defendants 1 to 4 in respect of Survey Nos- 2l and 22 with different extents. ln the remarks column in Exs.B 1 toB4, proceedings number is mentioned. These documents would show that they are of recent origin issued in 1995 or thereafter. Exs.BS to 89 are the certified copes of pahanis tor 1995-96, 1995-96, 7996_97, 7996_ 97 and 7997-9a respectively; the names of either defendants 1 to 4 or defendant No. 1 and Basheer husband of defendant No.2 are mentioned in respect of Survey Nos. 21 arrd. 22 with sub_ division numbers. The basis for the said extents of land is not explained by them. However, in the present case, patta in the name of subject Dargah is proved with authentic documents iike trxs.Al to A3, A6 andAT and also trxs.B12 to 814. Ex.A6 is
()
nol set asioc -.ro far. It appears that onivRevenue Inspector issueci Ex.Il10, s'hich is theproccedt'igs issuccibythe Rccorrling Authoriii-. Cheveila. iv{uchcreCitcannol },. attachecl to this document as it was 1'rot evenissued b]'the 'lahsildar' Mandai Rett:nue Officer. Apart froml,hat thc oldestdocument Ex.A1 pahani ior i96O-61 exhibiteci byplaintiffs s;irorvs that Dargah Hzt. Moula Ali is thepattadar oithc sult1alC. Ex.B10 does not dj-"clo-"e that any noticer,vas sen.edr.;rr cithcr the Waqf Bc,ard or the plarnliffs herein acting as deiacto -NIui:irl':rliis of thc Dargah. irr p:rra 2 oi trx.B10 though it isnr:ni:trr-redthat ihe .ralte I lras l-.:tn enqui::ecl in tlt i iliag'-: i'.:tr1no objccrit.us u e rc receiYe d, thc details of those enquil' ar. i'!ot c-isckrsedin Er.B10. V,rhen ihe suit land is in the nair-- citl:e subject Dargah, iht oillccr passing trx.B10proccirlngst'ilh:;ut giving an\ opportril-ritr io t'e aiiecledpel:rlons,b|rs,ng onthe mere r..ppiicatior. oj one Mohd. Bashee r, .islnril Lio e d inthe r:iercnce. c.-:ss,:i llx.BlOproceeciings rvhich is r-lo1l''irlid.
Thc Court belorv after thoroughi.';goingti'rough the evidcnce, both oral and documentary.linail-v hcld th:t plaintifis aparl irom esta'nlishing the fact that thel.art- iniau'iui
I
possession of suit lands by performing the duties of defacto - Mutawalli of suit iand and Defendants 1 to 4 tried to interfere with their possession, also estaLrlished that suit land is vr,,aqf properfy. It was further held that all the documents produced by Defendants 1 to 4 pertain to i995 or 1996 or thereafter only which do not prove their righl or possession over the suit 1and. 8. Heard Sri Dontineni Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for petitioners Farah Azam Khan, learned Standing Counsel for Waqf Board and Sri P. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Ms. Krishna Keerthana. The 2"d respondent rvas deleted from the array of parties as per the order dated 14.12.2021.
S
alrr:lvs a \'eqf property. Further,thr: evidenceof D.W 2 Shaik Noor Sahcl-.. lnspector Auciriortt'orkinguncier the ir"aqf Boarcl r-,'i-.l rch ciisclr-.scs that there is :l r.vaqfinstituticnChilia{ourii.rAli in Sun,e-v* No.5/ I and it is a notifiedrt'aql having .-,gricu1tura1 land in Sutrvev Nos. 21 ar,d 22 admeasuringAcs.5.il3guntas .lrtached to it. This u'itness alsoclaims thal Defcnda:'rts 1 to 4 cbrained p;.'ladar passbooks in respectof suit land ri'ithou" the knou'ledgc ol the Waql Board. Onthe other ha.nd,clcfe ndants reiieri on Uxs.B i to 84 - pattadarpass books in lhc n:rtre ol |]cfendani:i i to 4. h oli.'e-,zer, the saiddocumentsshc: ihat thtjr l.c cl fcctir:-r lrigin issued in1995 or there:rfttt-.Ls.LJ: !o ll'l are certificc' lopies of pahanis for199596,1996c;i ,1997 98 re spectir.e ]y u,herein the narnes ofeitherDe fcndants ito 4 or ii-i(: 1'r rlell:nclant and Ir{cihd.Basheer, husbancl oi the 2"d iieiend:rni ri'as mentioned. However, as could besccn from ixs.i\ i to ,',. A7, as noted supra, andtrxs.B12 to B -1. ccrtiiled 15pies of Ciresia Pahani iarine years1q55 to i958, 1l:rhar-risi'.lr ',.972-7 -?e:.rd 197?,-74,the name of Dargah is 1-rovedx'il}-r a,.rthentic ililcliments. Though D.W.1, inhis cross-c;;.lrnination, staied tha. in 1980, thego'rernmentissued patta to his lather
L
9
I
I I
Mohd. Jahangir, no such document $,as produced before thc Tribunal or this Court. Not only that, defendants in their written statement took the plea that one of the daughters of Jahangir tiled O.S.No. 141 of 2O05 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Chevelia which ended in compromise and a Iinal decree u.as passed therein, they did not produce the same before the Tribunal to prove their bona fides.
1 i. In the light of the same, parlicularly in the light oi the fact that the documents produced by Defendants 1 to 4 pertain to 1995 or 1996 or thereafter, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Tribunal has rightly decieed the suit holding that plaintiffs could establish their claim over thesuit
10
1zlnC. There are no grounds much less vaiid glounds to takc:r
a
conlra vicri'.'lhe Rcvi-sion is Lhcrefore, liable to be clisrnissed. 72. i'l:r: Cir.il Revision Petition is accordingl5', <iismissed. Nc cost s. 13. Visceilaneous Applications, ii any shal1 stanci closed.
\
//TRUE COPY//
Sd/- T. TIRUMALA DEVI ASSIST,ANT REGISTRAR
\ c CTION OTFICER
To,
l,s I
HIGH COURT
DATED:1110212025
ORDER
oF 'i-r. l. <br>.s
o s<br>{i
* .)
.'r
.-... .qD 4-. "..
CRP.No.700 of 202.
DISMISSING 1'HE CRI'
WITHOU'I'(]OSTS
?,o
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Telangana State Wakf Tribunal correctly held that the suit land is waqf property in possession of plaintiffs as defacto Mutawallis.
Whether defendants' revenue records from 1995 onwards establish their right or possession over the suit land.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mohammed Nazeer (died)
Sabera Begum
Mohammed Riyaz
Mohammed Rayees
Gore Miyan
Mohammed Habeeb Ur Rahman
Nagesh Bheemapaka
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
