B NARSAPPA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As these three writ petitions raise common question as to the jurisdiction of the Wakf Board and the constitutional validity of sections 4 to 7 of the Wakf Act, 1954, they may be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) For the purpose of answering the questions raised, it will be sufficient if we set out the facts stated in Writ Petition No. 4130 of 1971. The petitioners are all Lambadars. They claim to be in possession of the lands situate in Pothanpally village, Medak taluk. They were granted pattas by the revenue authorities in respect of these lands and they have been cultivating the lands paying land revenue. The inamdars of the village filed a petition before the Commissioner of Wakfs alleging that the lands in possession of the petitioners are wakf property. That led to an Assistant Commissioner of wakfs holding an enquiry under section 4 of the Act and ultimately deciding that the lands in question are wakf property. The Assistant Commissioner asked the Tahsildar not to allow the petitioners to raise any crops in the lands and restrain them from cultivating the lands. It is, therefore, complained by the petitioners that the declaration made by the Assistant Commissioner that the lands are wakf property is contrary to the revenue records and the grant of pattas to them. It is also their case that the Assistant Commissioner has no jurisdiction to decide questions of title and the enquiry contemplated under the provisions of the Act does not clothe him with jurisdiction to enquire into the claims of persons. other than those interested in a wakf and, therefore, the order of the Assistant Commissioner declaring the lands as wakf property and registering them in the register of wakfs is illegal and without jurisdiction. The order of the Assistant Commissioner is also attacked on the ground that it encroaches upon the rights of the petitioners to property under Article 19 (i) of the Constitution.

(3.) On behalf of the respondents i.e., the Government of Andhra Pradesh the Wakf Board, the Commissioner of Wakfs and the Government of India, a counter- affidavit is filed by a Deputy Legislative Counsel and ex-officio Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, Legislative Department, New Delhi. According to the respondents, the Commissioner of wakfs is required to decide disputes as to title and possession and he has only exercised the quasi-judicial powers vested in him. It is the case of the respondents that the Commissioner is not merely an Administrative Officer, but one vested with the authority to exercise quasi- judicial functions. It is further their case that the Commissioner of wakfs, while making a survey of wakfs, is required to conduct an enquiry and has been given the powers of a civil Court which include the summoning of witnesses re- quiring the discovery and production of documents. They, therefore, contend that, if the petitioners have any claims, they will be at liberty to approach the Commissioner of wakfs and tender evidence and show that the properties in question are not wakf properties. They denied that there is any deprivation of the rights of the petitioners to property. According to them, the impugned provisions of the Act do not suffer from the vice of unreasonableness or discrimination.