IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4680 of 2004 BETWEEN B. Sekhar Reddy and five others. ... PETITIONERS AND Dargah Hazarath Beram Shah Data Mosque Takia, Kurnool and another. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. GOVIND REDDY MANDADI Counsel for the Respondents: MR. J. JANAKIRAMI REDDY – R1 MR. HABIB-UR- REHAMAN – R2 The Court made the following: ORDER: The Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board and the Dargah Hazarath Beram Shah Data Mosque Takia, Kurnool filed a suit being O.S.No.84 of 2000 for declaration before the Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad, with respect to Sy.No.123/1 and 475/B admeasuring Ac.0.52 cents and Ac.1.94 cents respectively of Gargayapuram Village, Kurnool District. 2. According to the plaint allegations the report of the Survey Commissioner, which preceded the notification and which is marked as Ex.A2, shows under column 12 the aforesaid land. However, in the Gazette notification, which is marked as Ex.A1, the relevant details are referred to as Sy.No.124/2 admeasuring Ac.0.52 cents and Sy.No.475/B admeasuring Ac.1.84 cents. The suit for declaration was, therefore, filed to declare the aforesaid suit schedule land as Wakf property. The petitioners herein, who are the defendants, contended that the suit properties are their personal properties and that they are absolute owners and possessors of the properties from the time of their ancestors prior to 1950 and that the grandfather of the defendants 5 and 6 has purchased the said property for valuable consideration from the erstwhile owner and it was mutated and continued in the name of the family over the years. They also placed reliance upon a registered partition deed dated 07.09.1955 bearing document No.1858/55 showing the partition effected among the defendants. They also claimed that they have declared the aforesaid land in the land ceiling declaration, which was accepted and as such, denied the status of the land as Wakf property. 3. Before the Wakf tribunal, on behalf of the plaintiffs, P.W.1 – Inspector of Wakf was examined and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked whereas on the behalf of the defendants, the fifth defendant, who is the fifth petitioner herein, was examined as D.W.1 and he marked the partition deed as Ex.B1 and land ceiling declaration as Ex.B2. The Wakf tribunal framed the following issues as under: 1. Whether the suit property in Sy.No.123/2 and 475/B of Gargayapuram village is a wakf property attached to Dargah Hazarath Beram Shah Data Mosque Takia, Kurnool. 2. Whether the defendants can be evicted from the suit property. 3. To what relief. The tribunal came to decree the suit primarily on the ground that the defendants have failed to establish how they acquired title to the property and also on the ground that the notification in the Gazette was not questioned by anybody. The defendants’ case was resisted on the ground that they have not produced any revenue record except the land ceiling declaration, which is described as self-declaration without any efficacy and the declaration as prayed for was granted. The aforesaid order of the Wakf tribunal is questioned in this revision. 4. Heard Mr. Govind Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Habib-Ur-Rehaman, learned standing counsel for the Wakf Board and Mr. J. Janakirami Reddy, learned counsel for the first respondent. 5. A reading of the impugned order itself shows the most unsatisfactory way in which the suit for declaration is dealt with by the Wakf tribunal. Issue No.1, which is crucial, has been answered by placing burden of proof on the defendants rather than examining as to whether the plaintiffs have discharged the said burden. While hearing this revision petition, I had examined the report of the Commissioner, which is marked as Ex.A2, which is said to be a revised report of the Commissioner. A copy of the pre-revised report is also produced, which shows that the suit survey numbers are not mentioned in the particulars of the Wakf properties under column 12. The said pre-revised report is dated 21.04.1956 whereas the revised report is dated 29.04.1956 with hardly a difference of 8 days intervening. Further, the revised report, Ex.A2, mentions against columns 13 and 14 that Sy.Nos.123/2 and 475/B of Gargayapuram village have been alienated about 20 years back. The above endorsement clearly refers to the suit survey numbers being in possession of the defendants’ family for 20 years as on 1956 itself. 6. More importantly, the Gazette notification does not refer to Sy.No.123/2, which is one of the suit schedules herein, nor the extent of the other suit schedule survey number tallies with the Gazette notification. None of these aspects are kept in mind and scrutinized by the Wakf tribunal and a reading of the impugned judgment shows that the tribunal had granted declaration merely for the asking. The Commissioner’s report also shows that there is no Wakfnama and the name of the Wakif is not known. However, there is a reference to the title deeds, as against column 6 of the report, which includes one of the title deeds of Gargayapuram village as well. No attempt is made by the plaintiffs to at least produce the said title deeds, which are referred to in the Commissioner’s report nor they have produced any responsible officer to speak of the Wakf properties and merely examining the Wakf Inspector, who had no personal knowledge of the proceedings before the Commissioner, hardly serves any purpose. 7. Unfortunately, the tribunal below has not examined the matter on any of the aspects, as above. I am, therefore, constrained to set aside the impugned order and remit the suit to the Wakf tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law. All the parties shall have the opportunity to adduce such other evidence as would be advised by seeking appropriate permission from the tribunal. On consideration of the material before it, the tribunal shall endeavour to decide the suit afresh independently without being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove. The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J September 23, 2011 DSK