Syed Shah Mohammed Ibrahim Quadri vs The State Of Telangana on 8 April, 2025

Telangana High Court

Syed Shah Mohammed Ibrahim Quadri vs The State Of Telangana on 8 April, 2025

        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

           WRIT PETITION No.32244 of 2023
ORDER:

1. Heard Sri B.Mayur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the learned Counsel for the petitioner,

learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and

Registration and the learned Standing Counsel for Wakf

Board, appearing for the respondents.

2. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner

submits that in this writ petition the petitioner is

questioning the letter issued by the respondent No.5 in

Letter F.No.S-28/Govt/2020 dated 21.02.2023, directing

the respondent No.3 not to entertain any transactions in

respect of the number of properties including the

properties of the petitioner premises bearing Nos.

22-5-29, 22-5-30, 22-5-36, 22-5-38, 22-5-24 to 22-5-26,

22-5-44/1, 22-5-45, 22-5-253, 22-5-32 to 22-5-34, 22-5-

39 to 22-5-42, situated at Charminar, Hyderabad

(hereinafter referred as ‘subject properties’ ) without there
::2::

being any valid Notification Under Section 22-A of the

Registration Act and requested to direct the respondents

to remove the subject properties from the prohibition list.

3. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would

further submit that the subject properties of this writ

petition are the subject matter in O.S.No.989 of 1973 and

O.S.No.73 of 1974 on the file of IX Assistant Judge, City

Civil Court, Hyderabad and the respondent No.5 herein is

also one of the defendant in the said suits. The subject

properties were shown as ‘A-Schedule properties’ in the

said suits and declared that the schedule properties not

belongs to Wakf property.

4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also

submits that the respondent No.5 issued Notification,

which was published on 14.06.1984 in A.P.Gazettee,

Supplement to Part-II, wherein the subject properties

herein were shown as Wakf properties. Challenging the

same, Sakeena Begum, who was the plaintiff in
::3::

O.S.No.73 of 1974 filed W.P.No.2719 of 1996 and the said

Writ Petition was allowed on 30.11.2001 declaring the

said Gazette Notification dated 14.06.1984 issued by the

respondent No.5 as contrary to the Decree made in

O.S.No.73 of 1974 on the file of IX Assistant Judge, Civil

Court, Hyderabad and declared that the plaint-A schedule

properties therein, which are the subject properties

herein, as Mathruka property’. Aggrieved by the said

Order, the respondent-Wakf Board filed appeal vide

W.A.No.1974 of 2003 and the Division Bench of this Court

after hearing both sides, dismissed the said Writ Appeal

on 20.11.2003 and thereby the declaration of the schedule

properties as not belong to Wakf property and they are the

Matruka property has attained its finality.

5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would

further submit that when the petitioner approached the

respondent No.4 on 04.10.2023 for execution and

registration of lease deeds in respect of the subject
::4::

properties, the respondent No.4 refused to register the

same stating that the subject properties are under

Prohibited list. The said action of the respondent No.4 is

contrary to the Judgment and Decree passed by the

competent Civil Court in O.S.No.73 of 1974. Further the

impugned letter issued by the respondent No.5 in

F.No.S-28/Govt./2020 dated 21.02.2023 is contrary to

the Orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.2719 of 1996,

dated 30.10.2001 and also W.A.No.1974 of 2003, dated

20.11.2003 and requested to set aside the impugned letter

in F.No.S-28/Govt./2020 dated 21.02.2023 and

consequential orders, in so far as the subject properties of

the petitioner is concerned and requested to allow the writ

petition.

6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for

Stamps and Registration would submit that the

respondent No.4 has rightly rejected the request of the

petitioner for registration of the lease deeds basing on the
::5::

letter addressed by the respondent No.5, wherein the

respondent No.4 was directed not to entertain any kind of

transactions in respect of the subject priorities. He further

submits that until and unless the impugned letter dated

21.02.2023 issued by the respondent No.5 is set aside,

the respondent No.4 cannot register the documents

presented by the petitioner and requested to dismiss the

writ petition.

7. The learned Standing Counsel for Wakf Board,

basing on the counter filed by the respondent No.5 would

submit that to safeguard the Wakf properties from the

encroachers and land grabbers, the respondent No.5 had

addressed letter to the Chief Commissioner of Land

Administration and also the respondent No.3 with a

request to issue necessary instructions to all the

Sub-Registrars in Telangana State not to entertain any

kind of transactions in respect of the properties shown in

the Prohibition list by putting them under ‘Auto Lock’
::6::

disabling the online registration module of such

properties.

8. The learned Standing Counsel would further submit

that, Section 54 of the Transfer Property of Act, 1882

read with Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908

conclusively mandates for registration of deed of an

immovable property for its enforcement. The Registration

of Deed having recitals for transfer of right, title and

interest in favour of recipient along with recitals of

considerations give inference of presumption of title. The

execution of lease deed itself is under cloud, then the

registration itself cannot be held as proof of execution

and compliance under Section 67 of the Evidence Act is

necessary.

9. The learned Standing Counsel would further submit

that the primary contention of the petitioner that the Wakf

property, which is the subject property of the instant writ

petition, had been alienated by the legal heirs of the
::7::

Inamdars or by the then Mutawalli or their agents or

assignees is irrelevant and it was done in contravention of

the Wakf Act 1995/1954 being void ab initio. The

petitioner cannot circumvent the law on the basis of some

previous transactions that had taken place and the

contention of the petitioner that he is the legal owner of

subject properties is untenable. The Mutawalli cannot be

the owner of the subject Wakf lands. The Mutawalli is the

custodian and caretaker of the Wakf properties being the

Manager for the time being only. The petitioner has sought

for perpetuation of illegality, contrary to the settled

principles of law and that being the absence of any right,

whatsoever grant lease of the Wakf properties is not

maintainable and there are no merits and requested to

dismiss the writ petition.

10. After hearing both sides and perusing the record,

this Court is of the considered view that, the subject

properties i.e. Nos.22-5-29, 22-5-30, 22-5-36, 22-5-38,
::8::

22-5-24 to 22-5-26, 22-5-44/1, 22-5-45, 22-5-253,

22-5-32 to 22-5-34, 22-5-39 to 22-5-42, situated at

Charminar, Hyderabad were shown as ‘A’ schedule

properties in O.S.Nos.989 of 1973 and O.S.No.73 of 1974

on the file of IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court,

Hyderabad and in the said suit, the A.P.Wakf Board was

the defendant No.2. After conducting trial and marking

documents as exhibits, the Civil Court declared that the

Plaint-A schedule properties i.e. the subject properties in

the instant writ petition are ‘Mathruka property’ and

further declared that they are not Wakf properties.

11. Further, one Ms.Sakeea Begum, the plaintiff in

O.S.No.73 of 1974 filed W.P.No.2719 of 1996 questioning

the Gazette Notification, Supplement to Part-II-, 23-A,

dated 14.06.1984 under Sl.No.1297 at Page No.20

declaring the subject properties as Wakf Properties and

the learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the said

writ petition by its order dated 30.11.2001, wherein it was
::9::

held that the said Notification dated 14.06.1984 is

contrary to the decree made in O.S.No.73 of 1974 in so far

as the subject properties are concerned and declared as

Mathruka property. Aggrieved by the said orders, the

respondent No.5 herein, filed W.A.No.1974 of 2003 and

the Division Bench of this Court dismissed the said Writ

Appeal vide its order dated 20.11.2003. The Division

Bench of this Court in the said Writ Appeal held that the

Single Judge was justified in holding that the Notification

under Section 5 of the Wakf Act, 1954 cannot be issued

by the Wakf Board subsequent to passing of a decree by

the Civil Court which decision taken by competent Civil

Court at the relevant time, was affirmed in the appeal.

The Judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court

in the said Writ Appeal has attained its finality. In view of

the same, now the respondents cannot issue the

impugned list including the subject properties for

prohibition under Section 22-A (1)C of the Registration

Act, 1908.

::10::

12. In the counter filed by the respondent No.5, nowhere

denied about the orders passed by this Court in

W.P.No.2719 of 1996 dated 30.11.2001 and dismissal of

W.A.No.1974 of 2003 dated 20.11.2003. Once this Court

set aside the Gazette Notification Supplement, Part-II,

dated 14.06.1984 in so far as the subject properties are

concerned and declared that the same not belongs to Wakf

property and it is Mathruka property, which was affirmed

by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1974 of

2003, the respondent authorities cannot address

impugned letter including the subject properties in the

prohibited list once again and the said action is arbitrary,

illegal and liable to be set aside on the ground that the

same is contrary to the orders passed by this Court in

W.P.No.2719 of 1996 dated 30.10.2001 and W.A.No.1974

of 2003 dated 20.11.2003.

13. The other contentions raised by the respondent No.5

cannot be taken into account as the issue was already
::11::

settled in the earlier proceedings by the competent Civil

Court as well as this Court wherein it was held that the

subject properties not belongs to Wakf property and it

belongs to Mathruka property.

14. In view of the above findings, this Writ Petition is

disposed of by setting aside the impugned Prohibition

letter issued by the respondent No.5 in

F.No.S-28/Govt./2020 dated 21.02.2023 and

consequential letter in Memo No.G3/621/2021 dated

26.05.2023 issued by the respondent No.3 in so far as

the suit schedule properties of the petitioner is concerned

i.e. Nos.22-5-29, 22-5-30, 22-5-36, 22-5-38, 22-5-24 to

22-5-26, 22-5-44/1, 22-5-45, 22-5-253, 22-5-32 to 22-5-

34, 22-5-39 to 22-5-42, situated at Charminar,

Hyderabad and the Registering Authority is directed to

receive, register and release the documents presented by

the petitioner for the suit schedule properties, subject to

the petitioner complying with the provisions of the Indian
::12::

Registration Act, 1908 and Indian Stamps Act, 1899 and

otherwise in order.

15. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any,

pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.

____________________
JUSTICE K.SARATH
Dated:08.04.2025
trr