SIRAJUDDIN DARUWALA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS batch of writ appeals involving common issues arise from order dated 24.4.2002 in WP No. 10468 of 1999 and batch. WP No. 12296 of 2001 is connected with the subject-matter of the batch of these writ appeals. Hence, they are heard and being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE petitioners in WP Nos.21674 and 10468 of 1999 filed WA Nos.1410 and 1408 of 2002 respectively against the common order passed in the said writ petitions. THE State of Andhra Pradesh and the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, two of the respondents in WP Nos.21674 and 10468 of 1999, filed WA Nos.2068 and 1454 of 2002 questioning the common order passed in the said two writ petitions respectively. Certain third parties filed WA No.2101 of 2002 against the common order passed in WP No. 10468 of 1999 with the leave of this Court feeling aggrieved by the finding of the learned Single Judge that respondent Nos.1 to 126 are deemed to be in possession of Acs. 1385.00 of land in Sy.Nos.212 and 216 of Devada Village. WP 'No. 12296 of 2001 is filed by a partnership firm'by name Shree Krishna Salt Works for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents therein to pay the petitioner an amount of Rs.2.25 lakhs per acre in terms of G.O. Ms: No.239 dated 22.3.1999 and in accordance with the orders passed by this Court in WP No.5495 of 1992 in respect of the land handed over by it in Sy.No.491 of Devada Village, Pedagantyada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

(3.) ON 17.1.1967, the Tahsildar (Inams), Visakhapatnam held a detailed enquiry under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (for short, 'the 1956 Act') and held that the lands in question were inam lands. The said decision was questioned by the Wakf Board in appeal filed before the Revenue Court, which dismissed the same by its order dated 21.8.1967. These two orders were questioned by the Wakf Board in WP No. 1726 of 1968 filed in this Court. The said writ petition was dismissed on 22.4.1970. OS No. 148 of 1967 filed by the Wakf Board was also dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam on 14.2.1975. In the further enquiry undertaken by the Inam Deputy Tahsildar under Section 3(1) of the 1956 Act, he held that the lands situated in Sy.Nos.212 to 216 are inam lands in Inam village and they are not held by the institution i.e., Darga, Visakhapatnam. AS No.89 of 1976 filed against the judgment in OS No. 148 of 1967 was allowed and the suit was decreed by this Court by judgment and decree dated 6.8.1984. The said appeal was, however, dismissed against L.D. Daruwala, who was respondent No. 14 in the appeal and who died, on the ground that his legal representatives were not brought on record. Various notifications were published in the years 1991 and 1992 by the State Government seeking to acquire the land under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the 1894 Act'). An award was passed in respect of Acs.767.40 cents and disputes were referred under Sections 30 and 31 of the 1894 Act to the District Court, Visakhapatnam. Civil Appeal No.4372 of 1985 filed by some of the respondents in A.S.No.89 of 1976 before the Supreme Court was dismissed by the Apex Court confirming the judgment of this Court in AS No.89 of 1976 (Sayyed Ali and others v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad and others, AIR 1998 SC 972 = 1998 (2) ALD (SCSN) 31). The Supreme Court held that the disputed property was shown as Wakf property in the Andhra Pradesh Official Gazette on 30.11.1961 and that no suit having been filed challenging the said notification, the entries in the Official Gazette describing the property as Wakf became final and conclusive. The Supreme Court held that the finding of the Tahsildar that the property was not Wakf was wholly erroneous and beyond his jurisdiction and that such a finding does not constitute res judicata in the subsequent suit filed by the Wakf Board. ON these premises, the Supreme Court held that the decision of the Tahsildar under Section 3 of the 1956 Act, as to the character of the Wakf property, which was upheld by this Court, was one without jurisdiction. The Supreme Court repelled the contention advanced on behalf of Mokhasadars that once patta under the 1956 Act was granted, it was not open to the High Court to hold that the property was a Wakf property. It is useful to reproduce paragraph 14 of the judgment hereinbelow: