(Prayer: Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased toaggrieved by the Decree and Judgment passed in O.S No.45 of 2005 dt.01.09.2016 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh State Hyderabad.

IA NO: 1 OF 2016(CRPMP 7477 OF 2016

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the proceedings No.63/Port/ATP/97, dt.05.02.2005 of the 1st Respondent; pending disposal of the above CRP.

IA NO: 1 OF 2017(CRPMP 5722 OF 2017

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 vacate the interim order passed in CRPMP No.7477/2016 in CRP No.5759/2016 dated 16.12.2016

IA NO: 2 OF 2017(CRPMP 8386 OF 2017

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 vacate the interim suspension order dated 16.12.2016 passed in CRPMP No.7477/2016 in CRP No.5759/2016 and dismiss the CRPMP

IA NO: 1 OF 2020

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 set aside the Dismiss for Default Order dated 18.12.2019 and Restore the CRP.No. 5759/2016 on its file and to pass

IA 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 pleased to bring Sri. R.G.Mohiddin Khan as Respondent No.4 in C.R.P.No.5759 of 2016 as well in the all the I.As., being the Legal Representative of the deceased Respondent No.2 in the C.R.P. and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2022

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 bring Sri D.Ayub khan and smt. S.Fazana on record as petitioners 2 and 3 in CRP. 5759/2016 as well as in all the IAs being the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner no.1 in the above CRP.)

1. The present Civil Revision Petition arises out of the order passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Waqf Tribunal in OS.No.45 of 2005, whereby the claim of the petitioner was rejected. The petitioner challenged the issuance of proceedings No.63/PROT/ATP/97, dated 05.02.2005, under Section 54(3) of the Waqf Act, 1995.

2. The Waqf Tribunal vide the impugned proceedings dated 05.02.2005 declared the petitioner to be in illegal possession of the Waqf properties to an extent of Ac.13.09 cents in RS.No.232 and called upon the petitioner to remove the encroachments and deliver vacant possession of the land to the Waqf Board within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the order.

3. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner filed OS.No.45 of 2005, which was dismissed on 01.09.2016. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the judgment of the Tribunal has not considered any of the issues raised by the petitioner and has been carried away by the submissions of the respondents. It is submitted that the title of the petitioner can be traced to 1830. It is submitted that the property was gifted by Amin Bibi in favour of her daughter vide a registered gift deed dated 08.10.1830.

4. It is submitted that the grandfather of the petitioner executed a registered lease deed dated 20.10.1987 in favour of Siddappa, S/o.Jaleti Appa and Jaleti Appa, S/o.Siddappa. It is submitted that the Commissioner of Survey of Waqfs issued a publication in AP Gazette on 28.06.1962 alleging the entire property admeasuring Ac.. 13.55 cents as a Waqf property belonging to the Bada Ashor Khana building, Raidurg. The name of the Muthavali was mentioned as Rahim Khan, S/o.Lathif Khan and three brothers. A subsequent amendment to the AP Gazettee Notification dated 28.06.1962 was published on 11.07.1968.

5. It is submitted that the petitioner’s paternal brother got issued a legal notice to the Waqf Board on 27.06.1968 and filed OS.No.92 of 1968 on the file of District Munsif, Raidurg for declaration. The said suit was decreed on 12.02.1976, and the decree and judgment became final. It is submitted that once the notifications of the Waqf Board were set aside, the Waqf Board cannot place reliance on the said notifications for claiming any title.

6. It is submitted that the plaintiff is a descendant of Davod Khan and a paternal cousin brother of Rahim Khan, who filed suit OS.No.92 of 1968. It is submitted that the suit filed by the paternal brother of the petitioner herein was decreed, and the petitioner and their family have perfected title over the same by adverse possession as well. It is submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not considering the same. It is submitted that the petitioner filed WP.No.3350 of 2001 challenging the appointment of the 2nd respondent as Muthavali of the Mosque. The writ petition was dismissed, and the WA.No.648 of 2005 was filed by the petitioner. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court disposed of the writ appeal, directing the appellant to approach the Tribunal. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal has discarded the judgment and decree passed in OS.No.92 of 1968, dated 12.02.1976, on the ground that the decree is an ex-parte decree. It is also submitted that OS.No.3 of 1981, filed by R.G.Sher Khan and M.Basheer Ahmad against the petitioner’s paternal brother, the Waqf Board, and Hussain Khan, was dismissed on 11.10.1992. The suit was filed seeking the relief of removing the 1st defendant from the office of Managership of Pedda Masjid as he is mismanaging the affairs of the Mosque. The learned Judge, while dismissing the suit, had held that the subject property was private property and the 1st defendant had asserted title over the same. It is submitted that the said judgment attained finality.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also submits that the Tribunal has considered the order passed by this Court in WP.No.407 of 1968, whereby the petitioner therein claimed himself as the Manager of Pedda Masjid and sought the quashing of the proceedings No.D.Dis . 6507/1961, dated 05.08.1961, of Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Dharmavaram and the said writ petition was dismissed. It is submitted that the Tribunal has considered the cause title in the writ petition and was swayed by the petitioner describing himself as the Manager of the Pedda Masjid.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner has demonstrated his relationship with Rahim Khan, and also submitted the family tree before the Tribunal, which was also marked as Ex.A3. It is submitted that there is no necessity for the petitioner to seek cancellation of the notification dated 28.06.1962 or the subsequent errata notification dated 11.07.1968, as those proceedings were set aside by a competent civil Court.

9. It is also submitted that the impugned proceedings were issued without the respondents justifying their claim by submitting any cogent evidence. The impugned proceedings had nullified the claim of the petitioners, and the said decision was arrived at without considering the orders of the civil Court setting aside the notification(s) issued by the respondents. During the pendency of the CRP, the petitioner passed away, and his legal heirs were brought on record.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on several judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that stray references made in the judgment cannot act as a Precedent. The learned counsel for the places reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Dr.Karan Singh and others (1993 Supp (4) Supreme Court Cases 500) , Mittal engineering Works (P) Ltd., Collector of Central Excise, Meerut ((1997) 1 Supreme Court Cases 203) , Ashwani Kumar Singh Vs. U.P.Public Service Commission and others(AIR 2003 Supreme Court 2661), Mehaboob Dawood Shaik Vs. State of Maharashtra((2004) 2 Supreme Court Cases 362), M/s.Zee Tele Films Ltd., and Anr Vs. Union of India and Ors(AIR 2005 Supreme Court 2677), V. Ravi Kumar Vs. State, represented by Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Salem, Tamil Nadu and others ((2019) 14 Supreme Court Cases 568) , Mohammed Fateh Nasib Vs. Swarup Chand Hukum Chand(AIR 1948 PC 76).

11. It is also submitted that the general concept of once a Waqf property is always a Waqf property and that Waqf property cannot be subject of claim by adverse possession is no longer a good Law. It is also submitted that the Limitation Act would also be applicable for Waqf properties. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of T.Kaliamurthi&Anr Vs. Five Gori Thaikal Wakf & Ors(Civil Appeal No.4988-4991 of 2000). Ravinder Kaur Grawl and others Vs. Manjit Kaur and others(2019 (5) ALD 243 (SC))

12. It is submitted that the Tribunal erred in holding that the decree passed in OS.No.92 of 1968 was an exparte decree and, as such, did not consider it as a decree on merits and brushed aside the said order. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vijay Singh Vs. Shanti Devi and another10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an exparte decree is also a valid decree and it has the same force as the decree passed on contest.

13. It is submitted that the Waqf Act, introduced in 1995, has no retrospective effect. The petitioner is claiming the property as the legal heir of the original title holder. Even if, for the sake of argument, the property claimed by the petitioner is also claimed by the Waqf Board, the claim of the Waqf would have to be negated as the petitioner and their family were in continuous and uninterrupted possession. The tile of the petitioners has been perfected even by adverse possession. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in Angara Mosque Vs. Sreenivasa Rice Mill West Ghandrika, Chundru Surya Venkata Satyanarayana and ((2017) 8 SCC 837) others(2025 LawSuit (AP) 204).

14. It It is submitted that the Commissioner of Survey, while incorporating the subject land as Waqf property after having issued notices to the concerned parties, such as the petitioner, as they were in possession, the said report of the Commissioner and the subsequent notification would have to be set aside. It is submitted that this Court set aside said proceedings in the matter of Vanka Thrimurthulu Vs. District Collector and District Magistrate, East Godavari District, Kakinada and others(2024 (6) ALD 126 (AP)), whereby the notification of the Waqf Board was set aside as notices to the people in possession of the properties was not issued and their objections were not considered.

15. It is submitted that the judgments of OS.No.92 of 1968 and OS.No.3 of 1981 would operate as res judicata, and the petitioner having established the possession and title for more than 100 years. The claim of the respondent ought to have been rejected, and the impugned proceedings ought to have been set aside.

16. Sri.P.Veera Reddy, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the property claimed by the petitioner is a Waqf property and the Government in order to protect the Waqf properties in the year 1954 appointed a Survey Commissioner and after the Survey Commissioner submitted the report, Government sends the report to the Waqf Board for calling for objection(s) for notifying any property as a Waqf property.

17. It is submitted that anyone can file objection(s) for inclusion or non- inclusion of any property as a Waqf property. It is submitted that even a Muthavali can file objection(s), or anyone in possession of that property can file objections. The Waqf Board shall issue a notification after considering the objections, and a Gazette Publication is issued. It is also submitted that anybody who is aggrieved by the issuance of such a notification, whereby any interested person having a claim over any of the properties notified as Waqf properties, can file a suit challenging the inclusion of their property in the list of Waqf properties. It is submitted that if no suit is filed challenging the notification(s) within a period of one year, the Gazette Notification shall become final.

18. It is submitted that the Waqf Act, 1995, has replaced the old act, and Section 6 of the 1995 Act provides the same facility of challenging the notification(s) within a period of one year. The learned senior counsel submits that the Commissioner’s report (Ex.B20) on the Survey of Waqfs was relied upon by the Tribunal. It is submitted that the said document refers to the title document No.499 of Raidurg, and the Survey number is mentioned as 232. The extent of land is mentioned as Ac.. 13.55 cents. The property is also classified as religious, and the objects of the Waqf are to celebrate Moharrum. Rahim Khan is mentioned as Muthavali.

19. The learned senior counsel further submits that the petitioner has failed to establish his right of claim, and the reliance of the petitioner on Ex.A3 does not help the petitioner. It is submitted that even if Ex.A3 is considered as true and correct in all respects, the legal heirs of Rahim Khan would be entitled to make any claim as Rahim Khan has one brother by the name Ruheem Khan and Ruheem Khan has a son by the name Hussain Khan. It is not explained how the petitioner can claim ownership of the property.

20. The learned senior counsel submits that Ex.B22 clarifies all ambiguities regarding the property. The Dammayed Mosque is referred to, and it is also confirmed that it is well kept as on 09.05.1861, and the title document TD.No.499, dated 24.06.1861, is referred to. Ex.B23 also refers to title document 499 and land in RS.No.232, and the extent of land as Ac.. 13.55 cents. These are religious properties, and reference to Pedda Masjid is made in those documents.

21. It is submitted that the notification dated 28.06.1962 notifying the property claimed by the petitioner as a Waqf property and the subsequent errata by substituting Ashurkhana with Dammayad Big Mosque dated 11.07.1968 are not challenged till date by anyone. It is submitted that without these documents being set aside, the petitioner cannot claim any right, title, and interest over the same.

22. The learned senior counsel for the respondents submits that the Tribunal had rightly considered Ex.B31, by which OS.No.92 of 1968 was returned for presentation to the proper Court by the learned District Munsif, Raidurg, vide order dated 29.03.1974. It is submitted that the decree and judgment dated 12.02.1976 (Ex.A5), relied upon by the petitioner, was passed by the learned District Munsif, Raidurg, and has no clarity as to under what circumstances the learned District Munsif, Raidurg, overruled the order passed by the District Munsif Court and re- considered the suit.

23. The learned senior counsel submits that the finding of this Court, while dismissing WP.No.407 of 1962, that there is no dispute insofar as the status of the subject lands is concerned. It was held that the lands in question are held by the institution. This Court dismissed the writ petition, leaving it open to the writ petitioner to approach the Deputy Tahsildar, RDO, or any other Administrative Authority for adjudicating the grievance of the petitioner therein.

24. It is submitted that the respondent authorities issued notices to all concerned who were in illegal occupation of the respondent's properties, and an opportunity to submit their documents before the Tribunal was also afforded to the petitioner. It is submitted that the impugned proceedings are issued by the respondent, as the petitioner could not submit any document to prove the title or claim over the property. It is submitted that there was no occasion for the respondent authority to discuss and pass an elaborate order, as the petitioner has not submitted any documents that could have been discussed while passing the impugned proceedings.

25. If the petitioner does not submit any document(s) except for his explanation, there can be no discussion on the applicability or inapplicability of the documents submitted by the petitioner. The notice called upon the petitioner to submit an explanation along with relevant documents. The impugned proceedings would only refer to the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice dated 29.11.2002.

26. The learned senior counsel further submits that the petitioner would have to prima facie establish his claim over the property with cogent evidence. The petitioner has not filed any document to prove his claim or title over the property. It is also submitted that an adverse petition over the property would also not confer any title to the petitioner, as the respondents never accepted the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner continues to be under illegal occupation of the respondents' property, as such, the impugned proceedings were issued, and the Tribunal has passed a well-reasoned order.

27. The learned senior counsel for the respondent places reliance on S.Abdul Razack Vs. Mandal revenue Officer, Kollur and another(2000 SCC OnLine AP 122), whereby the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court held that once the properties are declared as Waqf properties, the hereditary Inamdar on the death of the original Inamdar cannot claim any compensation as Waqf Board shall have claim over the property and the property always vests with Waqf Board.

28. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply, submits that the respondents, in their written statement filed before the learned Andhra Pradesh State Waqf Tribunal, have not denied the relationship claimed by the petitioner. Ex.A3 was also not disputed; as such, the same would amount to a deemed admission. It is submitted that the Tribunal has framed two issues and subsequently sub-divided issue No.2 by framing points (a) to (f). These further points framed by the Tribunal at the time of preparing the judgment have handicapped the petitioner from leading evidence on the sub-issues framed and answered by the Tribunal without affording an opportunity to the petitioner.

29. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the relationship between the petitioner and Rahim Khan is specifically discussed during the cross-examination. It is submitted that the respondent in the written statement had categorically stated that the patta in the name of Rahim Khan and his brother is cancelled in the year 1968. Such a cancellation without issuing any proceedings cannot be treated as valid and binding.

30. It is submitted that for proving the relationship, there won’t be a certificate available for the petitioner to produce. A stray reference to Rahim Khan as the Manager of Pedda Masjid cannot be pitted against the petitioner. Ex.B23, the alleged cancellation of the patta, lacks a date and was generated to falsely claim the petitioner's property.

31. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned senior counsel for the respondents. Perused the material on record.

32. The petitioner has examined himself as a witness, and his evidence is recorded as PW.1. On the defendant's side, DWs. 1 and 2 are examined as witnesses. Exs.A1 to A17 are marked on behalf of the petitioner, and Exs.B1 to B39 are marked on behalf of the defendants.

33. The petitioner, in order to claim a right, title, and interest in the property, has placed heavy reliance on Ex.A3, the family tree of D.H. Shah. As seen from Ex.A3, the petitioner is a descendant of Aziz Khan, who is the son of Gouse Khan. Gouse Khan had two other sons, viz., Lateef Khan and Gafoor Khan, other than Aziz Khan. Lateef Khan has two sons, Rahim Khan and Ruheem Khan. Ruheem Khan has one son, viz., Hussain Khan. Gafoor Khan has one viz., Mahaboob Khan.

34. Ex. A1 is admittedly on plain paper, not on stamped paper. The petitioner further admitted, during cross-examination, that he has not filed any school, college, Municipal, Panchayat, or other records to establish that he is the successor and legal heir of Khader Khan and Dadoo Khan. The petitioner also admitted during cross-examination that he has not challenged the Gazette publication or the errata publication. It is also admitted that WP.No.407 of 1962 and WP.No.1465 of 1965 were filed by Raheem Khan (cousin brother of the petitioner) on behalf of all the family members. It is further admitted that writ petitions were filed claiming the scheduled property as family property, and both writ petitions were dismissed.

35. There is force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was never required to adduce evidence to establish his relationship with Rahim Khan. As seen from the judgment passed by the Tribunal, the Waqf Tribunal has erroneously framed the following sub-issues while deciding the issue No.2.

                  (a) Whether the palitniff is the family member of D.Rahim Khan ?

                  (b) Whether the judgment in OS.No.92 of 1968 operates as resjudicata to the present proceedings ?

                  (c) Whether the judgment in OS.No.03 of 1981 operates as resjudicata to the present proceedings ?

                  (d) Whether a pedda Masjid is in existence in the suit property ?

                  (e) Whether the Gazettee notifications dated 28.06.1962 and 11.07.1968 are binding on the plaintiff and his ancestors ?

                  (f) Whether the suit property is a notified Wakf property or private property of the plaintiff and his ancestors?

36. Admittedly, these spot sub-issues were framed by the Waqf Tribunal without granting an opportunity to the petitioner for either leading evidence on these sub-issues or an opportunity to submit any other defence or additional grounds for answering the said sub-issues. The above-referred sub-issues were self-framed and answered by the Waqf Tribunal while delivering the judgment.

37. The contention of the respondent that the plaintiff has approached the Tribunal claiming title to the property over which he was in possession would have to be prima facie established by leading oral evidence and submitting documentary evidence. To establish the prima facie claim of the petitioner, except for him, no other witness is examined. The petitioner has not filed the latest family tree as on the date of filing of the suit before the Tribunal, nor has the petitioner examined any of the family members, such as the paternal brothers or children of the paternal brothers. Such an opportunity or an occasion could have arisen had the Waqf Tribunal framed issues doubting the locus of the petitioner. The issues framed while trying the suit are as follows

                  (1) Whether the suit is maintainable ?

                  (2) Whether the proceedings No.63/PROT/APT/07, dated 05.02.2005 are liable to be declared as null and void ?

                  (3) To what relief ?

38. The above issues are more technical in nature than determining the locus and title of the petitioner over the property claimed by the respondent. The Tribunal, while determining the validity of the impugned proceedings issued by the respondent, ought to have considered the issue of title and framed appropriate issues.

39. The Tribunal has not determined on the title of the property and has held that the petitioner cannot claim title on account of the cancellation of the patta in the year 1968, which was in the name of Rahim Khan.

40. Insofar as the claim of the petitioner perfecting his title on account of adverse possession for all these years is concerned, the possession of the petitioner was not disturbed till the issuance of the impugned proceedings dated 05.02.2005. Until then, the petitioner was in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property. In the interregnum period, the petitioner also executed sale deeds in favour of third parties, though show cause notices were issued to those parties.

                  Final impugned orders were issued only to the petitioner, calling upon the petitioner to hand over vacant possession of land admeasuring Ac13.09 cents in Sy. No.232.

41. With regard to the respondents' stand that the petitioner had not challenged the notification(s), the notifications were, admittedly, set aside by an order of the Court. The respondents filed petitions seeking to set aside the ex parte order, but they were dismissed. Thereafter, no further steps were taken by the respondents, resulting in the ex parte orders passed in OS.No.92 of 1968 have attained finality.

42. There is no explanation from the respondents as to why the respondent authority has not passed similar impugned proceedings on the show cause notices issued to the subsequent purchasers of the property from the petitioner. The impugned proceedings dated 05.02.2005 would also affect the rights of subsequent purchasers for whom show cause notices dated 28.12.2002 were issued, calling upon them to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the extents of land in their possession. The respondent has not passed any orders on the said show cause notices; however, they passed the impugned proceedings only against the petitioner, calling upon the petitioner to hand over vacant possession of the entire extent of land, which could not have sustained the scrutiny of fact, law, and logic.

43. The possession of the property which is the subject of OS.No.45 of 2005 is admittedly not in the hands of the Waqf Board, even as on the notification of the properties in the year 1962 or the subsequent amendment in the year 1968. The possession of the petitioner and his family members was never disputed till the issuance of the show cause notice dated 28.12.2002. The said notice claims that land admeasuring Ac.. 13.55 cents is notified as Waqf published in the Gazette dated 28.06.1962 and 11.07.1968. The said notice also indicates that the said property was illegally alienated and is in unauthorized possession, as such, called upon the addressees to submit an explanation within 15 days.

44. The show cause notice refers to unauthorized alienation. It is silent as to what date the said unauthorized alienation is referred to in the said show cause notices. The respondents have not submitted any documents relating to the alleged unauthorized alienation or any other documents that clearly nullify the petitioner's claim.

45. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the judgment and decree dated 01.09.2016 passed by the learned Andhra Pradesh State Waqf Tribunal in OS.No.45 of 2005 deserves to be set aside. The proceedings dated 05.02.2005 issued by the respondent are also set aside.

46. Accordingly, the judgment and decree dated 01.09.2016 passed by the learned Andhra Pradesh State Waqf Tribunal in OS.No.45 of 2005 is hereby set aside, and the proceedings dated 05.02.2005 issued by the respondent are also set aside. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs.

                  As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed.