THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD C.R.P.No.2271 OF 2007 And C.R.P.M.P.No.4239 of 2007 COMMON ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.60 of 2003 on the file of the A.P. Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad dated 13.03.2007. The revision petitioners filed the suit claiming to be the absolute owners and possessors of the suit property since more than 100 years being in their and their ancestors possession throughout. The building was constructed by the ancestors of the revision petitioners in the subject land, adjacent to Jail Mosque of Asifabad and their enjoyment was without any objection by the Mosque or the Wakf Board. Suddenly, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Asifabad, at the instance of the Mosque Committee issued a notice dated 19.08.1992, which was challenged by the revision petitioners in W.P.No.12112 of 1992, and the same was allowed on 23.12.1993. After a lapse of eight years, suddenly a notice under Section 54 (1) of the Wakf Act, 1995 (for short ‘the Act’) was issued asking the revision petitioners to show cause as to why the encroachment should not be removed. Notwithstanding the reply of the revision petitioners dated 21.05.2001, the impugned order/notice was issued under Section 54(3) of the Act by the Chief Executive Officer of the Wakf Board, and the said order/notice did not specify the survey number of the property or when the revision petitioners have encroached into the land, and whether the possession and ownership of the revision petitioners was certified by the Gram Panchayat or not. Consequently the revision petitioners sought for declaration of the order/notice to be illegal and null and void and for a consequential injunction as prayed for. The Chief Executive Officer of Wakf Board and Mosque Committee resisted the suit contending that the house constructed was belonging to the Jail Mosque, Asifabad, which was registered as wakf property by the Gazette notification dated 30.03.1989. The revision petitioners never challenged the Gazette notification within one year and the suit is barred by limitation. As the revision petitioners are only encroachers, the action taken by the Chief Executive Officer cannot be questioned in the suit. On such pleadings, the Wakf Tribunal framed issues with regard to entitlement of the plaintiffs to declaration and permanent injunction and examined PWs.1 to 3 and DW.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.16 and B.1 to B.3 during the trial. The Tribunal rendered the impugned judgment noting the rival contentions and the evidence, and observing that the burden of proving the ownership and possession of the suit property was on the revision petitioners, the Tribunal noted that the documents relied on by the revision petitioners do not show the existence of H.No.1-87 (old) correlated to H.No.1-208 and 1-235 (new) prior to 1990 and the documents showing existence of the house and possession of the revision petitioners since 1990 are not helpful in proving the alleged possession and enjoyment of the revision petitioners and their ancestors prior to 1990. The Tribunal also noted that the old and new house numbers are not correlated and further observed that the final order passed in W.P.No.15267 of 1992 was not filed before the Tribunal. The Inspector of Wakf examined as DW.1 stated that the writ petition was dismissed. Non-filing of any documents of title by the revision petitioners was also taken adverse note of. While the existence of the house in the disputed land is not in dispute, the Tribunal further observed that the Chief Executive Officer acted upon Ex.B.1-Gazette notification dated 30.03.1989, which was again based on Ex.B.2-Survey Commission Report. The Tribunal also referred to Ex.B.3-certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat itself and as the Gazette notification is still in force, the action taken by the Chief Executive Officer is considered to be on legal and factual basis. The Tribunal therefore concluded that the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 3 notwithstanding, the revision petitioners failed to prove their title to the property in question and hence dismissed the suit without costs. The said judgment is challenged by the revision petitioners contending that the oral and documentary evidence produced by them was not considered in the proper perspective by the Tribunal and summary nature of the proceedings under Section 54 of the Act could not help to decide the disputed questions of fact. The revision petitioners contended that the respondents did not probablize the disputed house to be a wakf property, and desired the impugned judgment and decree to be reversed. The revision petitioners also filed CRP MP No.4239 of 2007 requesting to receive the certificate dated 19.05.2007 issued by the Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Asifabad as additional evidence to show that new H.No.1-208 corresponds to old H.No.1-87 and the property tax of the said house has been paid up to 2006-07 by the second revision petitioner, who is the owner of the house. Heard Sri B. Vijaysen Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri Mir Masood Khan, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 4. None entered appearance for respondents 2 and 3. The point that arises for consideration is whether the revision petitioners are entitled to have the impugned order/notice declared as null and void and for consequential injunction against the respondents herein. Section 83 (2) of the Act, under which the suit in question was styled to have been filed, contemplates an application, and not a suit, by a person aggrieved by an order under this Act for determination of any dispute, question or other matter relating to the wakf and no appeal shall lie against the order of the Tribunal, as per sub-section (9) of Section 83 of the Act though the power of revision is conferred on the High Court under proviso to the said sub-section (9) against any decision or order of the Tribunal. The examination by the High Court is confined to the correctness, legality and propriety of determination made by the Tribunal. The order/notice under challenge in the suit is one issued by the Chief Executive Officer under Section 54 of the Act. Sub-section (4) of Section 54 of the Act enables any person aggrieved by an order made by the Chief Executive Officer under sub-section (3) for removal of an encroachment, to institute a suit in the Tribunal to establish his right title and interest on the land, building, space or other property. However, the revision petitioners herein obviously did not choose to file such a suit to establish their right, title and interest over the property in question and confined themselves to only the legality and validity of the order/notice issued by the Chief Executive Officer under Section 54 of the Act. When the order/notice issued by the Chief Executive Officer is on the basis of the Gazette notification under Ex.B.1 dated 30.03.1989, which was again obviously based on Ex.B.2-Survey Commission Repot, the Chief Executive Officer cannot be considered to have acted without any legal or factual basis to disbelieve the said notice issued by the Chief Executive Officer. The revision petitioners firstly relied on the challenge made by them to the notice issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer on 19.8.1992 in W.P.No.15267 of 1992 before this Court, wherein an order of status quo was obtained. However, the Inspector of Wakfs in his evidence as DW.1 stated that the said writ petition ended in dismissal. The order in the writ petition itself is not before this Court to know on what grounds the revision petitioners had failed, but the fact remains that they failed. The notice given to the revision petitioners elicited a reply from them before order/notice under Section 54(3) was passed by the Chief Executive Officer and the said order rejecting the contentions of the revision petitioners was based again on Ex.B.1-Gazette notification dated 30.03.1989. As opposed to the Gazette notification, which is conferred with certain legal status and probative value as per the provisions of the Act, the revision petitioners relied on the payment of tax to the Gram Panchayat, Asifabad. In spite of certification by the Gram Panchayat, Asifabad about the ownership of the house based on the Panchayat records, as rightly contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, the Gram Panchayat will not determine any title or any dispute about the title, while levying or calculating or collecting the property tax, and even assuming that the certificate dated 19.05.2007 correlates the new house No.1-208 with old house No.1-87, which was doubted by the Wakf Tribunal in the impugned judgment, the same will not improve the matters for the revision petitioners, as as noted by the Tribunal, the revision petitioners did not file any document to show the title of themselves or their family over the disputed land. On the total absence of any documents of title except the documentary evidence about the payment of property tax made to the Gram Panchayat, the Tribunal disagreed with the request to quash the order/notice in question. Even the property tax receipts filed by the revision petitioners are not covering the entire period from 1962 continuously and it should also be remembered that the liability to pay the property tax is against either the owner or the occupier of the property in question and the payment of tax can therefore be also due to the revision petitioners being the occupiers of the property, which is not in question, and it may not be sufficient to nullify any title of the property belonging to the wakf. The oral evidence of the first revision petitioner as PW.1 is tainted with interestedness, and the claims of PW.1 with regard to his possession and enjoyment of the property cannot be equated to proof of title of the revision petitioners over the suit property. Therefore, the decision of the wakf Tribunal does not appear to be susceptible to interference in the restricted revisional jurisdiction of this Court. While the document sought to be admitted into evidence in CRP MP No.4239 of 2007 can be received as additional evidence and marked as Ex.A.17 in the suit, the same makes no material difference to the conclusions to be arrived at. But in view of the fact that the revision petitioners are obviously in possession since long, the parties have to be directed to bear their own costs in this revision. While disposing of the revision, it should also be made clear that either the impugned judgment or this order should not be considered as any expression of opinion on the right, title and interest of the revision petitioners over the property in question, if they take recourse to any other legal proceedings including a suit to establish the said right, title or interest of the revision petitioners, if they are otherwise entitled to take recourse to such proceedings and such suit or any other proceedings shall be determined uninfluenced by the observations made in the impugned judgment or this order. Accordingly, the CRP MP No.4239 of 2007 is allowed. The certificate issued by the Panchayat Secretary, Asifabad dated 19.05.2007 is received as additional evidence and marked as Ex.A.17 in the suit and the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed without costs. ________________________ (G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J.) APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE Witnesses examined - Nil- Documents marked For the revision petitioners Exs.A.1 to A16 Already marked by the Wakf Tribunal. Ex.A.17 – The certificate issued by the Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Asifabad, dated 19.05.2007 ________________________ (G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J.) 19th August, 2010 Js.