THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD C.R.P.No.2270 OF 2007 And C.R.P.M.P.No.4220 of 2007 COMMON ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.28 of 2003 on the file of A.P. Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad dated 13.03.2007. The revision petitioner filed the suit before Wakf Tribunal claiming that he is the absolute owner and possessor of house bearing No.1-86 (old) 1-207 (new) of Janakpur village, Asifabad, which is his ancestral property in the possession of his family for more than 100 years with a residential building constructed thereon by his ancestors. Though, Jail Mosque of Asifabad is adjacent to the suit house, none from the Mosque or Wakf have objected to the construction of the house by the family of the revision petitioner. But suddenly, a notice was issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer on 19.08.1992 at the instance of the Mosque Committee and that notice dated 19.08.1992 was challenged in W.P.No.13539 of 1992 where an order of status quo was granted on 19.10.1992. While so, the Chief Executive Officer of the Wakf Board/respondent herein issued the impugned notice dated 18.04.2001 under Section 54 (1) of the Wakf Act, 1995 (for short ‘the Act’) calling upon the revision petitioner to show cause as to why the encroachment should not be removed. Then notwithstanding the reply of the revision petitioner dated 21.05.2001, again a notice was issued under Section 54(3) of the Act on 7.11.2001 without considering the objections put forth by the revision petitioner. The mere Gazette notification about the suit property, being a registered wakf property, cannot deprive the revision petitioner of the property. Hence the suit for declaring the notice dated 7.11.2001 as illegal and null and void, and for a consequential injunction against the respondents herein from interfering with the subject house. The respondent herein resisted the suit contending that the suit house was constructed on a notified wakf property belonging to the Jail Mosque, Asifabad, which was registered as a wakf property by Gazette notification dated 30.03.1989. No suit was filed by the revision petitioner challenging the Gazette notification within one year, and in view of the same, the present suit is barred by limitation. The revision petitioner is an encroacher and is liable to be evicted and hence the suit has to fail. The Wakf Tribunal framed issues on the entitlement of the revision petitioner for declaration and permanent injunction and examined PWs.1 to 3 and DW.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.16 and B.1 and B.2 during trial. The Tribunal rendered the impugned judgment referring to the rival contentions and evidence, and noticed that Exs.A.1 to A.4 were not shown to be related to the same house with H.No.1-207 (new). Apart from that absence of proof of correlation of H.No.1-86 (old) with the suit house, the revision petitioner did not file any title deed or document to prove his title or title of his family, over the land. The Tribunal also noted that DW.1 specifically deposed that W.P.No.13539 of 1992 was dismissed, and consequently the Tribunal concluded that the alleged possession for about 100 years and his title over the suit land were not proved by the revision petitioner, in opposition to which, Ex.B.1-Gazette notification and Ex.B.2-certified copy of the Survey Commission Report were marked through DW.1-the inspector of wakf, and the Gazette notification was not challenged by the revision petitioner to consider it to be not in force. Therefore, the Tribunal considered that the Chief Executive Officer being satisfied about the encroachment of the wakf property cannot be considered as bad, and dismissed the suit without costs. The revision petitioner challenges the said judgment contending that the oral and documentary evidence adduced by him about the long and uninterrupted possession of the suit property could not have been rejected even in the absence of any title deed. As the proceedings under Section 54 of the Act are summary in nature, conflicting questions of title and possession could not have been decided in the suit before the Wakf Tribunal. Therefore, the revision petitioner desired that the impugned judgment and decree be reversed. The revision petitioner also filed CRP MP No.4220 of 2007 with a request to receive the certificate issued by the Panchayat Secretary, Asifabad, dated 19.05.2007 certifying that the new house No.1-207 corresponds to old house No.1-86. The Panchayat Secretary is also of the opinion that the revision petitioner is the owner of the house as per office records. Heard Sri B. Vijayasen Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mir Masood Khan, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. The point that arises for consideration is whether the revision petitioner is 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 petitioner herein obviously did not choose to file such a suit to establish his right, title and interest over the property in question and confined himself 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 petitioner firstly relied on the challenge made by him to the notice issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer on 19.8.1992 in W.P.No.13539 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 petitioner had failed, but the fact remains that he failed. The notice given to the revision petitioner elicited a reply from him before order/notice under Section 54(3) was passed by the Chief Executive Officer and the said order rejecting the contentions of the revision petitioner was based on again 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 petitioner relies on the payment of tax to the Gram Panchayat, Asifabad. In spite of certification by the Gram Panchayat, Asifabad about his 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.1-207 with old house No.1-86, which was doubted by the Wakf Tribunal in the impugned judgment, the same will not improve the matters for the revision petitioner, as noted by the Tribunal, the revision petitioner did not file any document to show the title of himself or his 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 petitioner 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 petitioner being the occupier 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 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 petitioner 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.4220 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 petitioner is 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 petitioner over the property in question, if he takes recourse to any other legal proceedings including a suit to establish the said right, title or interest of the revision petitioner, if he is 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.4220 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 petitioner 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.