THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CRP NO.5372 OF 2005 08-07-2010 Between: Mohammed Azambasha ..petitioner Vs. A.P. State Wakf Board …Respondent THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CRP NO.5372 OF 2005 ORAL ORDER The defendant in O.S.64 of 2000 is before this Court under Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act,1995 (for short “the Act”) challenging the order of the A.P. Wakf Tribunal, dated 29-08-2005. The respondent-Wakf Board filed the suit seeking a declaration that the suit schedule property No. 9/278 is wakf property attached to the Dargah Hazrath Masoom Basha, at Peta Kurnool and seeking a direction to the defendant/revision petitioner to vacate the suit schedule premises and deliver possession of the same to the Inspector Auditor, Wakf, Kurnool and for a further direction to the defendant to pay damages for the use and occupation of the suit schedule property from the date of suit till the date of delivery of possession and for costs. According to the plaintiff’s claim, Dargah Hazrath Masoom Basha (for brevity “Dargah”) is a registered notified wakf institution located in Kurnool Town. The Dargah is having three shops bearing Nos. 9/277, 9/278 and 9/279. Pursuant to a survey by the Survey Commissioner (Wakf) in a gazette notification No.18-A dated 02-05-1963, the three mulgies mentioned in the Survey Commissioner’s report as 9/228, 9/227 and 9/279 (instead of 9/277, 9/278 and 9/279) were published. Later, by the gazette publication dated 18-01-1996 in gazette No.31, an errata was published correcting the numbers as 9/277, 9/278 ( instead of 9/227 and 7/278). The plaintiff/Board laid title to the schedule properties in the Dargah on the basis of the gazette notification apart from a notice given by the Municipal Corporation, Kurnool to the Muthawalli of the Dargah to demolish the suit schedule mulgi No.9/278 as it was in a dilapidated condition. The other documentary evidence supporting the plaintiff’s claim are Exs.A-8 and Ex.A9 which are the property tax demand notices issued to the Dargah, Ex.A-10 the letter dated 24-09-1983 issued by the Municipal Corporation, Kurnool and Exs.A-11 to A-13 which are the wakf fund receipts. In addition PWs.1 and 2 supported the plaint claim. In the written statement, the revision petitioner contended that he is unaware of the two gazette notifications or the earlier Survey Commissioner’s report; that on the death of Abbas Miah one Mohd. Yousuf succeeded as Muthawalli of the Dargah; that the suit schedule properties are not wakf properties of the Dargah; that he and one Naseer Ahammad are the joint owners of the plaint schedule mulgies; that earlier he filed O.S.No.440 of 1985 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool seeking permanent injunction against the Muthawalli of the Dargah which was decreed on 03-11-1995 finding the issue of possession infavour of the revision petitioner; that there against the Muthawalli filed AS No.94 of 1995, which was dismissed by the District Judge, Kurnool while observing that there is a title dispute with regard to schedule property and that it is for the Wakf Board to take appropriate steps to claim a declaration of title and for recovery of possession; and that this observation of the appellate Court in AS No.94 of 1995 had triggered the filing of the present suit before the Wakf Tribunal. The learned Wakf Tribunal allowed the suit and declared that the plaint schedule property vests in the Dargah. Reliance for this conclusion was placed by the Tribunal on the two gazette notifications dated 02-05-1963 and 18-01-1996, the certified copy of the Survey Commissioner’s report of 1956 and of Exs.A-8 to A-13 which are the property tax demand notices and wakf fund receipts. The Tribunal further held that the mere fact that the revision petitioner/defendant had purchased the property from the vendees under Ex.B-1 a registered sale deed of 18-02-1964 would not per se confer title of the defendant to the suit schedule property as he has failed to establish the title of his vendees and their right to convey any title to the defendant. In view of the provision of Sections 6(4) and 7(4) of the Wakf Act, 1995, the order and decree of the Wakf Tribunal in O.S.No.64 of 2000 is seen to suffer from no infirmity warranting revisional interference. Section 6(4) enjoins that list of wakfs as notified and published in the official gazette under Section 5(2) shall, unless modified in pursuance of a decision of the Tribunal under Section 6(1), be final and conclusive. Section 7(4) also declares that the list of wakfs and where any such list is modified in pursuance of a decision of the Tribunal under sub-section (1) (by the Tribunal), the list as so modified, shall be final. The revision petitioner has neither assailed the correctness of the two gazette notifications whereunder the suit schedule property is declared to be a wakf property nor has he claimed adverse and prescriptive title of the suit schedule property and there was also no issue framed and decided as to whether the revision petitioner (as the defendant) had perfected his title by adverse possession for the requisite length of time. On the aforesaid analyses, this court finds no revisable error in the order of the Tribunal, warranting interference under Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act, 1995. This Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 8th JULY 2010 TSNR