THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR W.A.Nos.215, 578, 625 of 2002; W.P.No.26553 of 2003 and C.C.No.401 of 2008 Date of Order: 03-12-2010 C.T. in W.A.No.215 of 2002 Between: A.P.State Wakf Board rep. by its Secretary. ..Appellant and 1. The Hyderabad Archdioceses Society Archbishop House, Secunderabad rep. By its GPA Holder, Sri B.Janardhan and others ..Respondents The Court made the following Common Judgment: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR W.A.Nos.215, 578, 625 of 2002; W.P.No.26553 of 2003 and C.C.No.401 of 2008 Common Judgment: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) The A.P. State Wakf Board filed W.A.No.215 of 2002 and W.P.No.26553 of 2003 questioning the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.23792 of 1995 and judgment of the Special Court under the Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short “the Act”) in L.G.C.Nos.151 of 1996 respectively. Respondent No.6 in W.P.No.23972 of 1995 filed W.A.No.578 of 2002; State Government, Revenue Divisional Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer, who are respondents 1 to 3 in W.P.No.23792 of 1995 filed W.A.No.625 of 2002 against the very same judgment in W.P.No.23792 of 1995; whereas C.C.No.401 of 2008 is filed by the 13th respondent in W.P.No.26553 of 2003 complaining violation of status quo order passed by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.33624 of 2003 in W.P.No.26553 of 2003, dated 29-12-2003. Since all the writ appeals, writ petition and contempt case are interlinked with each other, they heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. The facts, which give rise to filing these appeals, writ petition and contempt case may, briefly, be stated as under: On issuing a notification published in the A.P. Gazette dated 29-12-1988 by the A.P. State Wakf Board declaring an extent of Ac.90.00 gts. situated in Sy.Nos.1 to 9 of Guttala Begumpet Village, Ranga Reddy District as Wakf Property pursuant to entry made in Endowment at page 117, Sl.No.41 as ordered in File No.44/M1/RR/87 by the A.P. State Wakf Board, the Hyderabad Archdiocese Society, Archbishop House, Secunderabad through its GPA holder (for short “Society”) filed W.P.No.23792 of 1995 contending that the above land was originally belonging to Lt. Col.Cox along with other survey numbers who sold the above extent in favour of B.Ramalingeswar Rao under a registered sale deed dated 08-05-1963 bearing document No.218/63, who in turn gifted an extent of Ac.90.00 gts. under an un-registered gift deed 05-10-1973 in favour of the 1st respondent—Society and ever since the gift, the Society was in possession of the entire property. It has been pleaded that transfer of the above property has been admitted by the M.R.O. in the declaration filed under Land Reforms Act in C.C.No.2379/KEL/75 and the said property has been excluded from the holdings of Ramalingeswar Rao, accepting the gift deed executed by him in favour of the petitioner—Society on 05-10- 1975. Before purchase of the property by Ramalingeswar Rao, the Tahsildar accorded permission under Sections 47 and 48 of A.P. Tenancy (Telangana Area) and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short “A.P. Tenancy Act”) in favour of Lt. Col.Cox permitting him to alienate the patta lands in Sy.Nos.1 to 9 comprising Ac.94.17 gts. situated in Guttala Begumpet Village, Ranga Reddy District to Ramalingeswar Rao. After completion of land ceiling proceedings, the M.R.O. conducted an enquiry under Section 5-A of A.P. Record of Rights in Pattedar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short “ROR Act”) and validated the unregistered & unstamped documents of transfer in the revenue records in favour of the Society. The same has been confirmed by the Joint Collector by proceedings dated 24-06-1991, rejecting the claim of other claimants. Questioning the same the persons aggrieved filed W.P.Nos.8543, 8544, 8575, 8617 of 1991 and 1196 of 1992. The High Court by common order dated 08-07-1992 allowed the writ petitions and remanded the matter to the Joint Collector for fresh enquiry. On such remand, the M.R.O. after conducting a detailed enquiry by proceedings dated 10-09-1993 accepted the claim of the Society to an extent of Ac.62.00 gts. and accordingly declared that the alienation of lands effected in favour of the Society as valid. Aggrieved by the said order some of the interested persons preferred an Appeal before the R.D.O., who by proceedings No.C/5704/93, dated 29-04-1995 confirmed the order of the M.R.O., accepting the claim of the Society. The Kasra Pahani prepared in the year 1954-55 also confirmed the title of Col. Cox and recognized him as Pattedar and the subsequent transfer of the property in favour of B.Ramalingeswar Rao was also accepted by mutating his name in the revenue records from whom the Society succeeded to the said property. While so, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate initiated proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. against K.S.N.Murthy and A.P. State Wakf Board in respect of Sy.Nos.6 and 7 o f Guttala Begumpet Village. In the said enquiry the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (R.D.O.) has confirmed the title of Col.Cox and also B.Ramalingeswar Rao. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate while disposing of the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. confirmed the claim of the A.P. State Wakf Board only to the extent of 1000 square yards in Sy.Nos.6 and 7 and rejected the rest of the claim. On an appeal filed by the Wakf Board, the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District remanded the matter to the M.R.O. for fresh enquiry. On such remand, the M.R.O. after conducting a detailed enquiry confirmed the title of Col.Cox and B.Ramalingeswar Rao and restricted the claim of the A.P. State Wakf Board only to the extent of 1000 square yards. While so, the A.P. State Wakf Board got issued the above notification. The Society came to know about the said notification only for the first time when the Wakf Board filed O.S.No.45 of 1994 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy for permanent injunction against the Society and others. On notifying the property as Wakf property, the Wakf Board filed L.G.C.No.151 of 1996 against eight respondents including the petitioners in W.P.No.23792 of 1995. The respondents 4 and 5 in L.G.C.No.151 of 1996 filed L.G.C.No.155 of 1996 against the Wakf Board claiming the property. The Special Court declared the Wakf Board as land grabber and directed it to restore the possession to the respondents therein. Respondents 9 to 15; 16 & 17; 18 and 19 were added as parties in L.G.C.No.151 of 1996 as per the orders in I.A.No.1211, 1212, 1213 and 1214 of 1996 dated 20-11-1996 and 21- 11-1996 respectively; whereas the 20th respondent was impleaded as per the orders in I.A.No.6 of 1997 dated 26-02-1997. The Land Grabbing Tribunal by its common judgment dated 19-09-2003 dismissed L.G.C.No.151 of 1996 in view of findings on issues 1, 3 and 4 that the respondents therein are not land grabbers within the meaning of Section 2(d) and (e) of Act XII of 1982, and the Wakf Board is not entitled to recover the possession of the schedule property. Consequently L.G.C.No.155 of 1996 was held to be not maintainable as the Land Grabbing Court has no jurisdiction to try the case on third issue and directed to return the application to the applicants for presentation before the appropriate court. Questioning dismissal of L.G.C.No.151 of 1996, the A.P. State Wakf Board filed W.P.No.26553 of 2003. Aggrieved by the order of the learned single judge in W.P.No.23792 of 1995, setting aside the notification, the A.P. State Wakf Board filed W.A.No.215 of 2002; Chairman and Managing Committee of the mosque filed W.A.No.578 of 2002 and State Government filed W.A.No.625 of 2002. Sri Shafiq Rahaman Mahajir, learned counsel appearing for the Wakf Board contends that the Special Court under the Land Grabbing Act is a coram non-judice on enforcement of Wakf Tribunal under the Wakf Act, 1995, which came into force on 22-11-1995. Since the land grabbing case was filed on 29-08-1996, the Special Court will not have any jurisdiction to decide the lis, viz., whether the property is a registered wakf or not; and it is only the Wakf Tribunal constituted under the Wakf Act is competent to decide the said issue. The entire findings recorded by the Land Grabbing Act in L.G.C.No.151 of 1996 are liable to be set aside leaving the parties to agitate their rights before the appropriate Forum. In support of the submissions strong reliance is placed on the judgments of this court. 1. MOHAMMAD QUTUBUDDIN v. M.MALLA REDDY[1] 2. P.RAMA RAO v. HIGH COURT OF A.P.[2] 3. UNITED BANK OF INDIA v. ABHIJIT TEA CO. (P) LTD.[3] Alternatively, he pleaded that he may be permitted to withdraw L.G.C.No.151 of 1996 to file the same before the appropriate forum— Wakf Tribunal constituted under the Wakf Act. He further contends that the learned single Judge erred in allowing W.P.No.23792 of 1995 filed challenging the notification notifying the property as Wakf Property. He also contends that when notification dated 29-12-1988, notifying Ac.93.11 gts. in Sy.Nos.1 to 9 of Guttala Begumpet as Wakf Property, was issued by the A.P. State Wakf Board, the Executive Magistrate in proceedings initiated under Section 145 Cr.P.C. cannot decide the title of the property on which much reliance is placed by the learned single Judge in allowing W.P.No.23792 of 1995. The writ petition was filed with a prayer to set aside the notification; whereas the reasoning given by the learned single Judge is quite different to the findings recorded. In a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the learned Judge cannot decide the title of either parties, which can be done only on appropriate pleadings by the Civil Court or Wakf Tribunal. The appellant in W.A.No.578 of 2002 moved the Court to register the property as Wakf property, whereas the claim of the Society is on the basis of unregistered gift deed, dated 05-10-1973 executed by B.Ramalingeswar Rao under which no title could be passed to the Society. When the claim of B.Ramalingeswar Rao—vendor of the Society has not been accepted by the Tribunal, the unregistered gift deed cannot be regularized. Sri S.Ramachandra Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents 4, 5, 16, 17 and 19 in W.P.No.26553 of 2003 contends that one Miss D’Costa Saheba was the Pattedar and possessor of the land including the land in Sy.Nos.1 to 9 having purchased the same in the auction and she was granted patta in the year 1916 and 1917 and she sold the land in Sy.No.13 to some others in the year 1940 under a registered sale deed. Her name was recorded in the concerned revenue records, viz., Sethwar, Pucca Book of the year 1929, Classer Register, Parthi Book. Lt.Col.Cox was the sole legal heir of D’Costa and as such he became the Pattedar of the property. The Tahsildar by proceedings dated 19-03-1963 accorded permission under Sections 47 and 48 of A.P. Tenancy Act to alienate the property in favour of B.Ramalingeswar Rao—2nd respondent in W.P.No.26553 of 2003. Ramalingeswar Rao purchased the property under a registered sale deed and whose name was recorded as Pattedar, which is evident from the proceedings dated 21-04-1964. Col.Cox and Ramalingeswar Rao executed various sale deeds alienating the land in Sy.Nos.1 to 9 in favour of various persons; out of which Ac.15.00 of land in Sy.Nos.4 and 5 was sold to the 4th respondent under an agreement of sale dated 11-04-1964; he also sold Ac.14.00 in Sy.Nos.5 and 6 to the 5th respondent under agreement of sale dated 20-05-1964. Ramalingeswara Rao gifted Ac.90.00 to the Society under an unregistered gift deed, dated 05-10- 1973, which was validated under ROR Act. Before the same the respondents 4 and 5 filed O.S.No.138 and 137 of 1981 against their vendor—B.Ramalingeswar Rao for declaration of their title and injunction in respect of their property in Sy.Nos.4, 5 and 6. On decreeing the suits, they got validated the unregistered alienation under ROR Act. Similarly, the Society also filed an application for validation of Ac.90.00. The M.R.O. by proceedings dated 10-09-1993 allowed the claim of respondents 4 and 5 and issued certificates in Form 13-B and 13-C regularizing unregistered sale in their favour. The appeal preferred against the said order was dismissed and the same has become final. Challenging the order of the M.R.O. dated 10-09- 1993, allowing the claim of respondents 4 and 5 and issuing certificates in Form 13-B and 13-C and the appellate order passed by the R.D.O. dated 29-04-1995, the Wakf Board filed W.P.No.22099 of 1996 but the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The vendor of the writ petitioner—Ramalingeswara Rao filed declaration under Urban Land Ceiling Act (for short “ULC Act”) apart from respondents 4 and 5. On rejection of the claim of respondents 4 and 5 by ULC authorities, they filed an appeal and the matter was remanded for fresh determination. In the year 1985, proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were initiated by the R.D.O, who by order dated 23-11- 1988 held that the land was in possession of respondents 4 and 5 and it is not a Wakf Property and delivered back the possession to them and since then they are in possession of the property. The Wakf Board filed O.S.No.45 of 1994 against respondents 4 and 5, but failed to obtain temporary injunction and ultimately the suit was dismissed for default. In the application filed by the Wakf Board, after concluding the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C., it was found that the Wakf Board has no right to the property, which was rightly set aside by the learned single Judge. The findings recorded by the Land Grabbing Court in L.G.C.No.151 of 1996, which is filed to declare respondents 4 and 5 and others as land grabbers, is binding on the parties, where the Land Grabbing Court held that the claim of the Wakf Board that the Aurangazeb gifted the schedule property is not true and there is no evidence that the mosque was constructed during the period of Aurangazeb and that the mosque will be called as “Alamgiri Mosque” and Mirza Khasim Saheb was the owner and Pattedar of the property is not true. Notice of registration of the Wakf was not published on 22- 10-1988 nor any application has been filed for registration of the property as required under Section 25(8) of the Wakf Act, 1995 (for short “Wakf Act”). The Special Court in L.G.C.No.151 of 1996 also observed that it is doubtful whether the Wakf Nama—Ex.A1, dated 14- 07-1959; Towliat Nama—Ex.A3, dated 11-01-1967 and Declaration in favour of Managing Committee of the Mosque—Ex.A5, dated 28-05- 1977 were filed before the Wakf Board on 25-06-1987 and which were not in the custody of the Managing Committee of the Mosque. The Wakf Board, though a party before the R.D.O. under the proceedings of Section 145 Cr.P.C. failed to produce all the material relied on by it before the Land Grabbing Court and Mirza Khasim Saheb was the Pattedar of the property was invented for the purpose of the case. Non- issuance of notice before registering the property as Wakf Property is against the principles of natural justice and dismissal of LGC filed by the Wakf Board itself shows that it (Wakf Board) is not in possession of the property. Once it is recorded that D’Costa and her legal heir, Col.Cox, were in possession of the property, Wakf Board failed to prove its right and title in the property. Respondents 4 and 5 purchased the property from Ramalingeswar Rao after obtaining permission from the Tahsildar. Therefore, the Wakf Board cannot be permitted to withdraw the writ petition nor can be permitted to withdraw L.G.C.No.151 of 1996. In view of the same, Writ Appeal and Writ Petition filed by the Wakf Board are liable to be dismissed. Sri P.Srinivas, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent while adopting the arguments of Sri S.Ramachandra Rao contends that Wakf Act came into force with effect from 01-01-1996 and if any question arises, whether a particular property is specified as Wakf Property in a list of Wakfs, any other person interested therein must apply to the Tribunal constituted under Section 83 of the Wakf Act having jurisdiction in relation thereto, has to be referred to the Tribunal. Therefore, no suit or other legal proceedings shall lie in any civil court in respect of any dispute, question or other matters relating to any Wakf Property which are required by or under this Act to be determined by the Tribunal. The Wakf Board filed L.G.C.No.151 of 1996 on 28-08-1996. By that time the Wakf Tribunal was not constituted, hence the Wakf Board rightly filed LGC before the Special Court. Therefore, any dispute that arises in respect of Wakf Board insofar as allegation of land grabbing shall be tried only by the Special Court or the Special Tribunal constituted under Section 7 of the Act, in view of bar of jurisdiction of the civil court in respect of land grabbing cases and its activity which was specifically taken away from the jurisdiction of the civil court under the Act. During the pendency of the case before the Special Court the State Government constituted Wakf Tribunal with effect from 01-07-1997. In the absence of any provision in the Wakf Act or in the Act to transfer the pending cases before various civil courts or the Special Court to the Wakf Tribunal, when the parties to L.G.C.No.151 of 1996 adduced evidence and marked the documents before the Special Court accepting its jurisdiction and having filed I.A.No.197 of 2001 before the Special Court to transfer the L.G.C.No.151 of 1996 to the Wakf Tribunal which was dismissed by the Special Court granting liberty to withdraw LGC, the Wakf Board has not challenged the order made in I.A.No.197 of 2001, dated 29-03-2001 nor withdrew the matter. Hence, they are bound by the findings recorded by the Special Court and precluded to raise the jurisdiction of the Special Tribunal to try the dispute. He also contends that no suo motu enquiry was held by the Wakf Board under Section 27 of the Wakf Act and the application has to be filed within three months from the commencement of the Wakf Act. Therefore, Wakf Board cannot receive application to register the properties in view of bar contained under Section 25(8) of the Wakf Act. In the absence of any suo motu enquiry held by the Wakf Board, the learned single Judge found Abdul Khadir said to have submitted the application ante dated. No opportunity was given to the Society to participate in the enquiry before notification of the property as Wakf property, only to get over the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. the above notification came to be issued by the Board. The same is not binding on the Society. The learned single Judge rightly allowed the writ petition. The Wakf Board lost L.G.C.No.151 of 1996, the Society and other interested persons validated their documents under the provisions of Section 5-A of ROR Act and the writ petition filed by the Wakf Board i.e. W.P.No.22099 of 1996 challenging Section 5-A proceedings has been dismissed as withdrawn apart from civil suit—O.S.No.45 of 1994 filed for permanent injunction. Hence, the Wakf Board has no right or title over the suit schedule property. In support of his submissions reliance is placed on the following judgment. M.P.WAKF BOARD v. SUBHAN SHA (D) BY LRS.[4]. In the light of the above submissions, referred to above, the following points arise for consideration in this batch of appeals. 1. Whether the learned single Judge is justified in setting aside the notification and giving a finding with regard to title of the property in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution, which are summary in nature? 2. Whether the Special Court under Land Grabbing Act is coram non-judice on constitution of Wakf Tribunal and is justified in proceeding with the matter instead of relegating the parties to agitate their rights before the Tribunal constituted under the Wakf Act, 1995? 3. Whether the findings recorded by the Special Court with regard to title of the Wakf Board vis-a-vis respondents/applicants in L.G.C.No.155 of 1999 can be sustainable or not? Point No.1: Petitioner in W.P.No.23792 of 1995 sought for a Mandamus to declare the notification published by the Government in the A.P. Gazette dated 29-12-1988 on the basis of alleged entry made in the books of Endowment of A.P. State Wakf Board and the proceeding of the Wakf Board pursuant to the said notification was published in respect of Ac.19.26 gts. in Sy.Nos.1 to 9 of Guttala Begumpet as Wakf property as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice. The learned Judge observed that the Tribunal has vested with the jurisdiction to decide the disputes relating to the Wakf Property under Section 85 of the Act, but when it is the case of the writ petitioners that the action was mala fide and that the notification was in contravention of Section 25 apart from violation of principles of natural justice, it cannot be said still dispute has to be adjudicated before the Tribunal. Under the said circumstances, it has to be necessarily declared that the application as filed by the 5th respondent and the registration of the Wakf basing on such belated application is wholly illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction, apart from being in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and allowed the writ petition stating that the registration of the Wakf and it is property in question in the Book of Endowments maintained by the Wakf Board as illegal and without jurisdiction. Sri Shafiq Rahaman Mahajir, learned counsel for the Wakf Board was emphatic in his submission, when the notification issued is under challenge, learned Judge has to set aside the notification but cannot go whether it is properly registered Wakf property or not which has to be dealt with under the Wakf Act for the said purpose. Learned counsel for the Wakf Board by placed reliance on the following judgments of the Supreme Court. 1. BOARD OF MUSLIM WAKFS v. RADHA KISHAN [5] 2. KARNATAKA WAKF BOARD v. STATE OF KARNATAKA[6] 3. BOARD OF MUSLIM WAKFS v. HADI BEGUM[7] 4. M. GOVINDA RAO v. A. P. STATE WAKF BOARD, HYDERABAD[8] 5. ANDHRA PRADESH WAKF BOARD, HYDERABAD v. S. SYED ALI MULLA [9] 6. SAYYED ALI v. ANDHRA PRADESH WAKF BOARD, HYDERABAD[10] 7. MOHD. QUTUBUDDIN v. M. MALLA REDDY[11] He contends that the Commissioner of Wakf is empowered to make a survey and report to Government and the persons who are interested in the Wakf property; list published under Section 5(2) of the Wakf Act can be challenged by a writ petition only where the order of the Wakf Commissioner under Section 4 suffers from want of jurisdiction and notification published as Wakf properties will be final; whether grantor was Muslim or professed other religion is immaterial and Wakf property allows to work including service imams. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents, Sri P.Srinivas, placed reliance on the following judgments. 1. RADHAKISHAN v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN[12] 2. A.R.S.KHADRI v .DISTRICT JUDGE[13] 3. ABDUL KAREEM V. SPECIALOFFICER WAKFS[14] 4. BANGALORE MUNICIPALITY v. BOARD OF WAKFS[15] 5. PARVATHI BAI v. WAKF BOARD, CIRCLE NO. 1, HYDERABAD, ANDHRA PRADESH[16] 6. BOARD OF MUSLIM WAKFS v. RADHA KISHAN[17] 7. SHAH MANZOOR PEER DARGAH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA[18] 8. PUNJAB WAKF BOARD v. GRAM PANCHAYAT, GRAM SABHA[19] 9. B. GOWRA REDDY v. GOVT. OF A. P. REVENUE DEPARTMENT, HYDERABAD[20] 10. KARNATAKA BOARD OF WAKF v. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA[21] 11. ABDUL RAIS v. MADHYA PRADESH WAKF BOARD[22] 12. A. P. STATE WAKF BOARD, HYDERABAD v. MAVURU SUNDARAMMA[23] 13. A.P. STATE WAKF BOARD v. SYED AMANULLA HUSSAINI[24] He contends that Wakf Commissioner cannot adjudicate a particular property is a Wakf property, but he can adjudicate only with the matters i.e. issuance of notice to the persons interested before notifying the property as Wakf property. It is now fairly well settled that the Mandamus jurisdiction is available under any public authority. The duty that may be enjoined by Mandamus may be one imposed by the Constitution, a statute, common law or by rules or orders having the force of law and it is only