IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4059 of 2005 Date:02.09.2011 Between: The General Manager, S.E. Railway, Secunderabad and 2 others. .....Petitioners AND The A.P., WAKF Board, rep. By its Chief Executive Officer, Hyderabad ....Respondent THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4059 of 2005 ORDER: 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 83(9) of A.P. WAKF Act, 1995, against the order dated 01.04.2004, in O.S.No.26 of 2002 passed by the A.P. WAKF Tribunal, Hyderabad. 2. The learned counsel for the appellants mainly contended that the orders passed in O.S.No.26 of 2002 by the A.P.Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad, is not sustainable since the Wakf Tribunal, is not empowered to decide the title, and placed reliance on the decision reported in RAMESH GOBINDRAM V. SUGRA HUMAYUN MIRZA WAKF[1] at para Nos.29, 33 and 35. 3. In support of his contention, the learned counsel draws the attention of the Court to the judgment in O.S.No.14 of 1996 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati, and argued that one Syed Khader Vali and Shaik Iqbal Basha, filed the suit against the Railways and five others alleging that they are in possession of the suit schedule property and the Court, after due enquiry, found that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule property, but not as a matter of right, and their possession may be protected till they were evicted under due process of law. 4. Being aggrieved by the judgment in O.S.No.14 of 1996, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the III Additional District Court, Tirupati and the appellate Court also negatived the contention of the plaintiffs. Being aggrieved, they preferred W.P.Nos.13209 of 2010 and 13351 of 2010 and the same were yet to be admitted. While drawing the attention on the judgment in O.S.No.14 of 1996, and stated that the trial court held that the railways has got right in the said suit schedule property. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, while placing reliance on the Gazettee notification Ex.A.1 dated 08.10.1998 draws the attention of this Court to Section 7 of the A.P. WAKF Act, 1995 (for short, the Wakf Act) and stated that unless the petitioners are vacated under due process of law, the injunction granted by the Tribunal cannot be meddled with. He also stated that the Wakf Board had no title over the suit schedule property and they are only enjoying the property for offering prayers etc. 6. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Wakf Tribunal in O.S.No.26 of 2002 dated 1.4.2004 is sustainable? 7. The present proceedings in O.S.No.14 of 1996 on the file of the III Additional District Court, Tirupati, by one Syed Khader and Shaik Iqbal Basha against the railways and 5 others alleging that they are in possession of the suit schedule property and the court after due enquiry found that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule property but it has no right and their possession would be evicted under due process of law, which was also brought to the notice of the court that being aggrieved by the said judgment, the plaintiffs i.e., railways preferred appeal before the III Additional District Court, Tirupati, and the said appeal was also negatived against the railways that against which the railways preferred W.P.Nos.13209 of 2010 and 1335 of 2010 and the same are yet to be admitted. 8. As seen from the record, as per decree in O.S.No.14 of 1996 the petitioner/railways in eviction proceedings were issued under Forms A and B. As per the recitals in the said O.S., the railways has leased out an extent of Ac.15.98 cents to Sri Venkateswara University, for play ground in R.S.No.609 and that the Minister for Railways refused to assign the land to Muslims, and that in the earlier suit O.S.No.14 of 1996, the railways contended that the suit was hit by principles of resjudicata. On that ground the earlier suits for the self same property which was ended in dismissal. A perusal of the para No.37 of the said judgment it is clearly noted that O.S.No.148 of 1995 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati, was filed for declaration of a title and for permanent injunction for self same property and it was dismissed for default. A petition in I.A.No.1188 of 1992 was filed to restore the same and the same was also ended in dismissal on 17.12.1992. Against the said orders, committee preferred an appeal in C.M.A No.81 of 1993 on the file of Additional District Court, Tirupati, which was also dismissed on 31.1.1995. As against the same, the committee again preferred revision in C.R.P.No.440 of 1996 on this Court and same also ended in dismissal. 9. As seen from the record, the Muslim community filed the suits one after the another against on the suit schedule property admittedly belongs to the railways. As seen from the record, as per Ex.B.1 dated 4.12.1984 the ownership of the railway was noted in the bottom column. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have seen that the respondents have no title or right over the suit schedule property and the earlier suit filed by the Muslim community was dismissed and in another suit the Court has directed the railways to follow due procedure of law for evicting the persons from the schedule land. As per Ex.B.2 dated 11.2.1976, it is mentioned that Ac.60.60 cents falls in Sy.No.609 and the name of the pattedar was mentioned as railways. The alleged notification Ex.A.1 dated 8.10.1998 issued by the Wakf Board which is after the pahani Ex.B1 dated 11.21976. By filing the notification dated 8.10.1998 Ex.A.1, the petitioners made out fresh cause of action and filed the present petition before the Wakf Board which is not competent to decide the title of the property, when already a dispute with regard to the title of the property is pending before the civil court. In view of the matter, the finding of the Wakf Board is erroneous without any jurisdiction. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 01.04.2004 passed in O.S.No.26 of 2002 by the A.P. WAKF Tribunal, Hyderabad. However, the petitioners may work out their remedies if any as observed by the lower court in O.S.No.14 of 1996. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ K.S.APPA RAO,J Date:02.09.2011. Gk THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4059 of 2005 Date: 02.09.2011 Gk. [1] (20108 SCC 726