Writ of Prohibition Issued | Andhra Pradesh HC Bars Wakf Tribunal from Rehearing 47-Year-Old Land Dispute |‘Jurisdiction Non-Existent, Title Settled Since 1978’
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Subba Reddy Satti allowed a writ petition seeking prohibition against the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Tribunal from proceeding with a suit concerning disputed land. The Court held that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction under Section 7(5) of the Wakf Act, 1995, to entertain the suit filed by a wakf institution after a competent civil court had already adjudicated the matter in 1978. The Court directed that the Tribunal could not re-open the issue or proceed with the suit seeking declaration of title, cancellation of sale deeds, and recovery of possession in respect of the same property.
The petitioner, the 12th defendant in O.S.No.3 of 2024 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Tribunal, filed the writ petition challenging the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The dispute centered around an extent of Ac.1.64 cents in Survey No.249/1B1B (Old S.No.54) of Guntupalli village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, NTR District. The petitioner acquired this land through purchase from vendors who claimed ownership since 1938. The petitioner developed part of the land for commercial purposes after converting it from agricultural to non-agricultural status. Revenue records reflected the petitioner's name, and Pattadar Pass Books were issued.
The 4th respondent, a wakf institution named Mazlum Shah Darvesh Takia & Masjid-Wakf, represented by its Mutavalli, filed O.S.No.3 of 2024 against 17 defendants seeking a declaration of title over Ac.45.32 cents, cancellation of twelve sale deeds, and recovery of possession. The property was allegedly recognized as wakf property in a Survey Commissioner Report dated 07.12.1955 and gazetted. The Tribunal ordered status quo on 19.01.2024. Instead of filing a written statement, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
The petitioner asserted that the suit was barred by Section 7(5) of the Wakf Act, 1995, due to the final judgment and decree in O.S.No.151 of 1975, where the Subordinate Judge at Vijayawada had dismissed a similar suit concerning the same land. That earlier suit, also filed by the same wakf institution, had sought recovery of possession based on an alleged title. The civil court had found that the land did not belong to the wakf and that the property was treated as private and excluded from the gazetted list of wakf properties.
The counter-affidavits filed by respondents contested the writ’s maintainability, claiming the earlier suit concerned tenancy and did not resolve title. They alleged the petitioner’s Pattadar Pass Book was obtained through suppression. They invoked Section 108-A of the Wakf Act, stating it overrides other laws, and argued that adverse possession could not be claimed against wakf property. Respondents claimed the current suit was necessary to seek a declaration of title and cancellation of the sale deeds executed without valid title.
The Court heard senior counsel for the petitioner and counsels representing the respondents, including standing counsel for the Wakf Board.
The Court noted, "According to CRAIG R. DUCAT, a Writ of prohibition is an order issued by a superior Court to an inferior Court directing it to cease consideration of some matter to prevent it from usurping jurisdiction it did not have." Citing multiple precedents including Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, the Court stated, "When an inferior court takes up for hearing a matter over which it has no jurisdiction, the person against whom the proceedings are taken can move the superior court for a writ of prohibition."
The Court examined Section 7(5) of the Wakf Act, stating: "The Tribunal shall not have jurisdiction to determine any matter which is the subject-matter of any suit or proceeding instituted or commenced in a civil court under sub-section (1) of section 6, before the commencement of the Act..."
Referring to O.S.No.151 of 1975, the Court recorded that the civil court had conclusively held: "...it cannot be said that the schedule property is wakf property, simply because the plaintiff claims that it is wakf’s property." It further noted: "There is no material on record to show that the schedule property is the property of the plaintiff institution."
On the Tribunal’s competence, the Court observed: "Once Section 7(5) of the Act comes into action, the Tribunal, at no stretch of imagination, can continue the suit on its file for further adjudication."
Regarding the impact of Section 107 of the Wakf Act, the Court relied on the Supreme Court judgement in T.Kaliamurthi v. Five Gori Thaikkal Wakf, stating: "...the right of the Wakf to the suit properties stood extinguished...when Section 107 came into force, it could not revive the extinguished rights."
The Court stated that the present suit sought the same reliefs previously dismissed, including declaration of title and possession. It was filed decades after the original decree, without fresh grounds or legal basis to overcome the earlier findings.
It concluded that the Tribunal's continued adjudication would amount to "exercising jurisdiction that was not vested in it", making it amenable to a writ of prohibition.
The Court issued the following directions: "Thus, given the discussion supra, the writ petition filed by the petitioner stands allowed. The Wakf Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the suit O.S.No.3 of 2024, given Section 7(5) of the Wakf Act, 1995."
It further added: "As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy, Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Eluru Sesha Mahesh Babu, Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri Shaik Khaja Basha, Advocate; Sri S.M. Subhani, Advocate; Masalegar Hidayathulla, Advocate; S. Arifullah, Standing Counsel for AP Wakf Board
Case Title: Kalimela Kiran Kumar vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Others
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 2618 of 2024
Bench: Justice Subba Reddy Satti
