N NARAYANA REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRAPRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) G .O. Ms. No.87 Minorities Welfare (Wakf Board) Department dated 21.10.1994 issued by the Government according permission to the Wakf Board to alienate certain lands mentioned therein, upon the request made by the Special Officer of the Wakf Board, is under challenge.

(2.) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that Government have no jurisdiction to accord any such permission to alienate wakf properties. Further, both the Counsel brought to the notice of this Court that the immovable properties of the Wakf Board can be alienated by way of sale, agreement, mortgage or in any manner, with the prior sanction of the Wakf Board only, as contemplated under Section 36(A) of the Wakf Act, 1954 (old Act) or under Section 51 of the new Act. A reading of the said provision makes it clear that Wakf Board is the sole authority which can accord permission to alienate the wakf properties. The role of the Government in the alienations of the properties can be nowhere traced. Further Section 63 of the Wakf Act, 1954 is the only provision, which is very remotely relevant. The said section postulates that upon any directions on questions of policy issued by the Central Government, the State Government may issue special directions as it thinks fit and such directions shall be complied with by the Board. However, a reading of this provision does not indicate that any jurisdiction is conferred on the Government in the matters relating to alienation of the wakf properties, and further there is also no requirement of any special directions from the Central Government under Section 62. Further, the impugned G.O. cannot be understood as a proceeding issued exercising its jurisdiction under Section 63, inasmuch as the said G.O., as can be understood from it, was issued as required by the Special Officer of the Board. Hence, I am of the view that the Government have no jurisdiction to issue the impugned G.O. My view is supported by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Markaz Construction v. S.H. Mirza Wakf, 1996 (1) ALD 952.

(3.) FOR the foregoing reasons, the impugned G.O. issued without jurisdiction is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside.