IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 6234 of 1999 Between: Smt. D.Ramulamma, W/o. Pentaiah, Hindu, R/o. Mallapur Village, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District at Hyderabad. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad East Divison, R.R.District at Hyderabad. 3 M. Yadagiri Reddy, S/o. Gopal Reddy, R/o. Nacharam, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 4 L.V. Narasimha Reddy, S/o. Lakshmi Narasimha Reddy, R/o. Nacharam, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 5 Y.A. Prasad, S/o. Chalapathy Rao, R/o. Nacharam, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 6 Zaheer Ahmed Khan, S/o. Gulam Ali Khan, R/o. 20-7-115, Khazipura, Hyderabad. 7 Smt. Mallamma, W/o. Late Ramulu, R/o. Mallapur Village, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 8 Smt.A.Ettamma, W/o. Abbaiah, R/o. Mallapur Village, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ, order or direction, more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the orders in File No. J/3115/93, dt. 3-7-1993 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein and which were confirmed in orders in File No. B3/5280/93, dt.24-5-1994 of the 1st respondent herein as bad, illegal, void and set aside the same and be pleased to issue such other order or orders as this Hon'ble may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.H.SIDDAIAH Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 6234 OF 1999 ORDER: Aggrieved by the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 03.07.1993, as confirmed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy in proceedings dated 24.05.1994 granting Occupancy Rights Certificate to respondents 3 to 6, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner is the daughter of Sri Achagani Danaiah who, according to her, was a protected tenant under the A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 over an extent of Ac.14.15 guntas of land in Mallapur Village, Uppal Mandal of Ranga Reddy district. Respondents 3 to 5 filed an application dated 09.06.1993 for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate and the Revenue Divisional Officer, vide order dated 03.07.1993, granted Occupancy Rights Certificate to respondents 3 to 5 over an extent of Acs.11.20 guntas of land. The 6th respondent is also said to have made an application for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate and the Revenue Divisional Officer is alleged to have granted occupancy rights to him for an extent of Ac.2.35 guntas. While several contentions are raised regarding the validity of the order, the primary contention of Sri E.Madhan Mohan Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Occupancy Rights Certificates were granted on the basis that the petitioner and her two sisters had given consent to such Occupancy Rights Certificate being granted in favour of respondents 3 to 6 whereas their consent letters were, in fact, forged. Learned Counsel would point out that when this plea was specifically taken before the Joint Collector, he had, instead of examining this contention, observed that the proper forum to examine the contention relating to forgery was the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. Learned Counsel would submit that, in the light of the petitioner’s contention that their consent letters had been forged, the entire proceedings before the 2nd respondent stood vitiated not only by fraud but also for violation of principles of natural justice since the petitioner was, admittedly, not put on notice nor were they given opportunity of being heard. While this submission of the learned Counsel is no doubt attractive, it is unnecessary for this Court to go into this question in view of the fact that the entire extent of land in Survey Nos.151 to 154, (over a part of which respondents 3 to 6 were granted Occupancy Rights Certificate and which the petitioner claims to be a protected tenant of), was notified as wakf property in the A.P.Gazette dated 27.08.1987. A copy thereof has been enclosed along with the counter affidavit filed by the 6th respondent. Section 5 of the Wakf Act relates to the publication of list of wakfs and, under Section 6 (1), if any question arises whether any particular property specified as wakf property in the list of wakfs is wakf property or not, any person interested therein may institute a suit in the Tribunal for the decision on the question. Since the property in question has, admittedly, been notified as a wakf neither the Revenue Divisional Officer nor the Joint Collector had jurisdiction to grant any Occupancy Rights Certificate over such lands and it is only the jurisdiction of the Tribunal which should have been invoked either by the petitioner or by the unofficial respondents. The impugned order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 03.07.1993, and the order of the Joint Collector dated 25.04.1994, are accordingly set aside leaving it open to the parties herein to have their grievance adjudicated, if they so choose, in a suit before the Wakf Tribunal. The writ petition is allowed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ____________ 12-08-2008 GS