Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment

Judgment:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '431002',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
			'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
			'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '431002',
		(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '431002',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
		'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
		'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '431002',
	(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/431002/inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,',
	(int) 12 => '<p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.',
	(int) 37 => '<p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 38 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 39
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

A. Gopal Reddy, J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '431002',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
			'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
			'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '431002',
		(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '431002',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
		'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
		'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '431002',
	(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/431002/inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,',
	(int) 12 => '<p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.',
	(int) 37 => '<p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 38 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 39
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '431002',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
			'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
			'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '431002',
		(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '431002',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
		'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
		'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '431002',
	(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/431002/inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,',
	(int) 12 => '<p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.',
	(int) 37 => '<p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 38 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 39
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '431002',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
			'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
			'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '431002',
		(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '431002',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
		'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
		'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '431002',
	(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/431002/inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,',
	(int) 12 => '<p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.',
	(int) 37 => '<p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 38 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 39
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '431002',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
			'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
			'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '431002',
		(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '431002',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
		'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
		'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '431002',
	(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/431002/inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,',
	(int) 12 => '<p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.',
	(int) 37 => '<p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 38 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 39
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '431002',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
			'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
			'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '431002',
		(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '431002',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
		'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
		'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '431002',
	(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/431002/inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,',
	(int) 12 => '<p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.',
	(int) 37 => '<p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 38 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 39
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '431002',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
			'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
			'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '431002',
		(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '431002',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
		'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
		'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '431002',
	(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/431002/inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,',
	(int) 12 => '<p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.',
	(int) 37 => '<p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 38 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 39
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '431002',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
			'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
			'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '431002',
		(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '431002',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
		'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
		'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '431002',
	(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/431002/inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,',
	(int) 12 => '<p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.',
	(int) 37 => '<p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 38 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 39
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '431002',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
			'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
			'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '431002',
		(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '431002',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
		'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
		'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '431002',
	(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/431002/inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,',
	(int) 12 => '<p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.',
	(int) 37 => '<p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 38 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 39
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '431002',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
			'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
			'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '431002',
		(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '431002',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
		'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
		'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '431002',
	(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/431002/inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,',
	(int) 12 => '<p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.',
	(int) 37 => '<p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 38 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 39
$i = (int) 9
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '431002',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
			'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
			'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '431002',
		(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '431002',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
		'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
		'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '431002',
	(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/431002/inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,',
	(int) 12 => '<p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.',
	(int) 37 => '<p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 38 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 39
$i = (int) 10
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '431002',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
			'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
			'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '431002',
		(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '431002',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
		'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
		'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '431002',
	(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/431002/inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,',
	(int) 12 => '<p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.',
	(int) 37 => '<p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 38 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 39
$i = (int) 11
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '431002',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
			'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
			'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '431002',
		(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '431002',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
		'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
		'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '431002',
	(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/431002/inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,',
	(int) 12 => '<p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.',
	(int) 37 => '<p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 38 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 39
$i = (int) 12
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '431002',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
			'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
			'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '431002',
		(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '431002',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
		'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
		'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '431002',
	(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/431002/inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,',
	(int) 12 => '<p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.',
	(int) 37 => '<p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 38 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 39
$i = (int) 13
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '431002',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
			'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
			'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '431002',
		(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '431002',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
		'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
		'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '431002',
	(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/431002/inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,',
	(int) 12 => '<p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.',
	(int) 37 => '<p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 38 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 39
$i = (int) 14
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the Wakf Act, 1954, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '431002',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
			'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
			'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '431002',
		(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '431002',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
		'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
		'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '431002',
	(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/431002/inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,',
	(int) 12 => '<p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.',
	(int) 37 => '<p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 38 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 39
$i = (int) 15
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '431002',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
			'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
			'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '431002',
		(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '431002',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
		'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
		'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '431002',
	(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/431002/inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,',
	(int) 12 => '<p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.',
	(int) 37 => '<p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 38 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 39
$i = (int) 16
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '431002',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
			'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
			'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '431002',
		(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '431002',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
		'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
		'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '431002',
	(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/431002/inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,',
	(int) 12 => '<p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.',
	(int) 37 => '<p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 38 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 39
$i = (int) 17
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '431002',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
			'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
			'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '431002',
		(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '431002',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
		'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
		'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '431002',
	(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/431002/inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,',
	(int) 12 => '<p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.',
	(int) 37 => '<p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 38 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 39
$i = (int) 18
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '431002',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
			'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
			'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '431002',
		(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '431002',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
		'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
		'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '431002',
	(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/431002/inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,',
	(int) 12 => '<p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.',
	(int) 37 => '<p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 38 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 39
$i = (int) 19
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '431002',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
			'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
			'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '431002',
		(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '431002',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
		'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
		'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '431002',
	(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/431002/inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,',
	(int) 12 => '<p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.',
	(int) 37 => '<p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 38 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 39
$i = (int) 20
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notwithstanding anything contained in the Limitation Act, 1963, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '431002',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
			'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
			'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '431002',
		(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '431002',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
		'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
		'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '431002',
	(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/431002/inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,',
	(int) 12 => '<p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.',
	(int) 37 => '<p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 38 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 39
$i = (int) 21
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '431002',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
			'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
			'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '431002',
		(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '431002',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
		'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
		'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '431002',
	(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/431002/inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,',
	(int) 12 => '<p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.',
	(int) 37 => '<p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 38 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 39
$i = (int) 22
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '431002',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
			'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
			'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '431002',
		(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '431002',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
		'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
		'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '431002',
	(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/431002/inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,',
	(int) 12 => '<p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.',
	(int) 37 => '<p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 38 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 39
$i = (int) 23
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '431002',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
			'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
			'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '431002',
		(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '431002',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
		'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
		'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '431002',
	(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/431002/inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,',
	(int) 12 => '<p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.',
	(int) 37 => '<p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 38 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 39
$i = (int) 24
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '431002',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
			'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
			'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '431002',
		(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '431002',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
		'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
		'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '431002',
	(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/431002/inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,',
	(int) 12 => '<p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.',
	(int) 37 => '<p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 38 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 39
$i = (int) 25
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that Wakf Act, 1954 as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '431002',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
			'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
			'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '431002',
		(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '431002',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
		'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
		'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '431002',
	(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/431002/inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,',
	(int) 12 => '<p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.',
	(int) 37 => '<p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 38 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 39
$i = (int) 26
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '431002',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
			'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
			'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '431002',
		(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '431002',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
		'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
		'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '431002',
	(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/431002/inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,',
	(int) 12 => '<p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.',
	(int) 37 => '<p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 38 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 39
$i = (int) 27
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '431002',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
			'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
			'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '431002',
		(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '431002',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
		'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
		'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '431002',
	(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/431002/inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,',
	(int) 12 => '<p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.',
	(int) 37 => '<p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 38 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 39
$i = (int) 28
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '431002',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
			'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
			'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '431002',
		(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '431002',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
		'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
		'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '431002',
	(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/431002/inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,',
	(int) 12 => '<p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.',
	(int) 37 => '<p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 38 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 39
$i = (int) 29
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '431002',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
			'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
			'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '431002',
		(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '431002',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
		'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
		'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '431002',
	(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/431002/inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,',
	(int) 12 => '<p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.',
	(int) 37 => '<p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 38 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 39
$i = (int) 30
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Wakf Act, 1954, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '431002',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
			'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
			'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '431002',
		(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '431002',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
		'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
		'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '431002',
	(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/431002/inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,',
	(int) 12 => '<p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.',
	(int) 37 => '<p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 38 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 39
$i = (int) 31
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '431002',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
			'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
			'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '431002',
		(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '431002',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
		'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
		'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '431002',
	(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/431002/inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,',
	(int) 12 => '<p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.',
	(int) 37 => '<p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 38 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 39
$i = (int) 32
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '431002',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
			'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
			'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '431002',
		(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '431002',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
		'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
		'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '431002',
	(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/431002/inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,',
	(int) 12 => '<p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.',
	(int) 37 => '<p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 38 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 39
$i = (int) 33
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '431002',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
			'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
			'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '431002',
		(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '431002',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
		'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
		'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '431002',
	(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/431002/inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,',
	(int) 12 => '<p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.',
	(int) 37 => '<p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 38 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 39
$i = (int) 34
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '431002',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
			'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
			'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '431002',
		(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '431002',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
		'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
		'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '431002',
	(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/431002/inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,',
	(int) 12 => '<p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.',
	(int) 37 => '<p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 38 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 39
$i = (int) 35
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '431002',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
			'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
			'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '431002',
		(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '431002',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
		'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
		'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '431002',
	(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/431002/inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,',
	(int) 12 => '<p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.',
	(int) 37 => '<p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 38 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 39
$i = (int) 36
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '431002',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
			'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
			'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '431002',
		(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '431002',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
		'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
		'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '431002',
	(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/431002/inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,',
	(int) 12 => '<p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.',
	(int) 37 => '<p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 38 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 39
$i = (int) 37
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '431002',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
			'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
			'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '431002',
		(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Inspector Auditor a P Wakf Board Vs Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer and ors - Citation 431002 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '431002',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 30 and 31(2); <a href="/act/134403/wakf-act-1954-complete-act">Wakf Act, 1954</a> - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; <a href="/act/50905/limitation-act-1963-36-of-1963-complete-act">Limitation Act, 1963</a>; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law',
		'appealno' => 'AS No. 423 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Ali Farooq, SC',
		'counseldef' => 'Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-02-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. </p><p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.</p><p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.</p><p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).</p><p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.</p><p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.</p><p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.</p><p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.</p><p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.</p><p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.</p><p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,</p><p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 </p><p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 </p><p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.</p><p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 </p><p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 </p><p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.</p><p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.</p><p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:</p><p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.</p><p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:</p><p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:</p><p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.</p><p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.</p><p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.</p><p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.</p><p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.</p><p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.</p><p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.</p><p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.</p><p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.</p><p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.</p><p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.</p><p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.</p><p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.</p><p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.</p><p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2007(4)ALD6',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '431002',
	(int) 1 => 'inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/431002/inspector-auditor-p-wakf-board-vs-divisional-acquisition'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A. Gopal Reddy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is an appeal preferred by the A.P. Wakf Board against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.P. No. 23 of 1996 dated 16-1-2001, rejecting the claim of the Wakf Board and answering the reference holding that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired lands equally between themselves.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. An extent of Ac.3.26 cts. in Sy. No. 407/5 which is the subject-matter of appeal along with Ac.6.00 in Sy. No. 400/A situated at Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer through his award No. 5/95-96 dated 9-12-1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,000/- per acre. As there was a title dispute between the Wakf Board and the claimants with regard to their entitlement of compensation so awarded, the LAO chooses to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the entire compensation into the Court under Section 31(2) of the said Act.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. On reference being received, the civil Court numbered it as O.P. No. 23 of 1996 and issued notices to the parties. The 3rd claimant filed claim statement contending that land in Sy. No. 407/2 originally belonged to Darga Jagir who alienated the said land in favour of her husband--Basireddy Laxmireddy on 20-7-1941 for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/- and subsequently the said Jagir alienated 1/4th share in the well to him and delivered the possession and ever since of the sale her husband was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Jagir lost his rights on granting patta and she succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the property on the death of her husband and paying cist to the Government under Kulam No. 749. The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiri initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 44/93 under Section 145 Cr.P.C, conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of Darga Manager and a member of District Wakf Board and passed an order ratifying the possession of the claimants and held that the claim of the Wakf Board is illegal. Hence, her claim may be accepted. The Inspector, A.P. Wakf Board--Claimant No. 4 filed claim statement stating that Sy. Nos. 400/A and 407/2 is a Wakf, meant for the maintenance of the Darga in Kutagulla Village, of which Wakf Board is the absolute owner and possessor of the property which was notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The Board was leasing out the land and collecting the amounts. It is not the personal Inam as per the statement of Darga Manager. Claimant No. 2--R.2 was the tenant of the acquired land, which stands in the name of 'Darga of Shah Zahiruddin and Dargah of Syed Shah Baba Shaha Hussaini'. The plea of adverse possession is not available against the Darga lands. The compensation fixed is low and claim of Mutawalli and claimant No. 3 are groundless and the Wakf Board is entitled to receive the compensation. The Darga Manager-claimant No. 1 while adopting the claim statement of claimant No. 4 stated that he is a temporary Mutawalli; the Wakf Board is the absolute owner of the property; the alleged auction dated 20-7-1941 and purchase of the property by the husband of claimant No. 3 is false. Hence, the claim of claimant No. 4 may be allowed. Claimants 2, 5 and 7 remained ex-parte. During the pendency of reference, claimant No. 3 died and her legal representatives are brought on record as claimants 8 to 11 (R8 toR11).',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In order to prove the respective claims, claimant No. 10 was examined, on behalf of claimant Nos. 8 to 11, as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf. The past and present Inspectors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B14.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Claimant No. 10, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that his mother is the 4th daughter of claimant No. 3; claimant Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are other daughters of the claimant No. 3. He is the only son of Ashwadhamma--4th daughter of claimant No. 3 who died six years back. Himself and his aunts--claimants 8, 9 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased--claimant No. 3. The acquired land is a service Inam to Darga Manager, which was originally purchased in public auction in the year 1941. Since then their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the same. His maternal grandfather purchased a portion of land including well. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta, original of which was lost. Proceedings were held before the M.R.O., Kadiri in M.C. No. 44 of 1993. Ex.A2 is the patta issued by the Darga Manager and the M.R.O. upheld their possession in Ex.A3 order. Therefore, himself and claimants 8, 9 and 11 are entitled to receive compensation. The husband of claimant No. 3 died in the year 1982. Since for the last 50 years the husband of the 3rd claimant, thereafter the claimants 8, 9 and 11, in succession, were enjoying the property and entitled to receive the compensation. He denied that the property belongs to Wakf Board.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. P.W.2 the past Inspector of Wakf Board deposed that the land in Sy. Nos. 400/ A and 407/2 belongs to Akramshawvali Dargah and Hazarath Syed Jahiruddin Shah Baba Hussain Darga, they are service Inam lands meant for services of both Dargas and except the Wakf Board other claimants have no right to receive the compensation. He admitted that the acquired lands were service Inam lands and he does not know how the Darga got those lands and he is not aware of sale in favour of husband of 3rd claimant.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. P.W.3 the present Inspector and Auditor of Wakf Board deposed that the land was given under title deed No. 521 which was originally granted by Tippu Sultan. In the previous suit between the muzavars, it was held that the property belongs to Darga as such they are Wakf properties and claimant No. 3 has no right in them. Ex.A1 is the copy of rough patta while Ex.A2 is the patta and the M.R.O. through his order dated 28-3-1994 in M.C. No. 44 of 1993 (Ex.A3) upheld the possession of claimant No. 3 and claimants 8 to 11 are her legal representatives. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by the Darga Manager. Ex.A5 is the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Claimant Nos. 8 to 11 relied on by patta given by Jagir--Ex.A2 in proof of their title to the acquired land; whereas Ex.B14 is the translation of the firman of Tippu Sultan who granted acquired property and other properties in favour of Darga.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Learned Senior Civil Judge after evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties held that there is no record to connect the acquired land with the land granted under Ex.B14; wherein 256 pagodas of land was said to have been granted in favour of two Dargas of Kutagulla Village. In the absence of any co-relating documentary evidence from the side of Wakf Board to show that the acquired land was part of the grant, the lower Court discarded Ex.B14 that is not a valid document to prove the title of the said Darga. Further, the judgments of the District Munsif, Madanapalle; District Judge, Cuddapah and High Court of Madras--Exs.B9 to B11 on which Wakf Board claim their title, it was held that in the absence of any evidence that vendor of Ex.A1 or his predecessors were parties to those proceedings, it will not be binding on them. The subject-matter of those proceedings are totally different; the same is relating to entitlement of portion of income. The ownership of the property by Darga was not in question in those proceedings. Further, Exs.B9 to B11 do not contain any survey number or identifiable description of the lands held by the Darga. Mere notifying the property as Wakf property through Errata dated 15-7-1970 will not deprive the third parties, who are in possession of the same continuously for the last 50 years, of their rights in the said property. The lower Court rightly held that the claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the lands acquired which are the subject-matter of O.P. Exs.B12 and B13 are certified copies of Inam fair registers, which were relied upon by the appellant--Board. In Ex.B12 title deed the number is mentioned as 524, in Ex.B13 the number is mentioned as 521. In the absence of any co-relative material to show that the said two documents relate to the acquired land, non-mentioning of the survey numbers and name of the grantor in the above documents itself cuts the root of the Wakf Board's case that Tippu Sultan was the original grantor. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted the plea that since the definition of Wakf includes the Wakf by user, as there was no evidence to show the acquired land was used as Wakf property. The gazette notification--Ex.B6, dated 15-1-1970 shows that property in question was registered along with other properties showing them as Wakf properties. Ex.B7 is the relevant entry. Earlier gazette notification dated 28-6-1962--Ex.B5 did not include the immovable property under Sy. No. 407/2; whereas in Errata dated 5-7-1970--Ex.B7 the said properties were included in the properties of Darga. The said notification is not binding, as the claimant Nos. 8 to 11 and their predecessors were in possession from 20-7-1941. Section 66G of the Wakf Act prescribes 30 years as period of limitation for initiating legal action to recover the wakf properties from the hands of others. Even if the purchase of claimant No. 3 is in defective title, the right of the Wakf Board to file the suit was extinguished on 20-6-1971. Therefore, the Wakf Board is not entitled to receive compensation and accordingly the lower Court rejected their plea.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications were published, notifying the properties as Wakf properties as per Section 3(r) of Wakf Act, it is a permanent dedication as pious, religious or charitable. Once it is a Wakf it is always Wakf; the lower Court erroneously held that claimant Nos. 8 to 11 are entitled to receive the compensation. Once claimants 2, 5 and 7 are set ex-parte, the lower Court is not justified in answering the reference in their favour. The respondents are claiming rights in Sy. No. 400/A and they are no way concerned with the other property. Therefore, the lower Court is not justified in declaring them as entitled to receive the compensation. Exs.A1 to A5 cannot convey any right on the respondents 8 to 11 to claim compensation, unless Wakf Board is a party to the said documents. Once the properties were notified as Wakf properties, it is for the respondents to file a suit for declaration of their right and having not done so, they are not entitled to receive the compensation. He placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>1. Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad : [1998]1SCR398 ,',
	(int) 12 => '<p>2. Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. : AIR1994AP301 ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>3. Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam : [1974]2SCR544 ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>11. Per contra, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 8 to 11 contended that husband of 3rd claimant purchased the property under Ex.A1 on which date the properties were not declared as Wakf property. The properties were declared as Wakf through Exs.B5 and B6 behind back of the claimants; therefore, the same are not binding on them. In the absence of any proceedings initiated against claimant No. 3 under the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim compensation. When there is no evidence that the property was a Wakf property on the date of purchase of claimant No. 3, the Wakf Board cannot claim any right in the property. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>1. Kotaiah v. Wakf Board A.P. : AIR1978AP34 ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>2. Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan : [1979]2SCR148 ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>12. From the evidence, as referred to above, the appellant--Wakf Board mainly relied upon Exs.B5 and B6--gazette notifications, wherein the property in question was notified as Wakf property. learned Counsel for the Wakf Board failed to demonstrate how the findings arrived by the lower Court with regard to grant of land under Ex. B14 are wrong and whether the acquired land is a part of grant and it is a valid document to conclude the title of Dargah, in the absence of any corroborative evidence that suit survey number forms part of Sy. No. 407/2 under Ex.B14; and there is no co-relative material to show that the suit survey number is a part of Exs.B12 and B13 and the grantor who dedicated the said property to the Wakf.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. The entire argument of the appellant centers round the gazette notifications--Exs.B5 and B6. It is not disputed that after the notification issued under Exs.B5 and B6 Wakf Board has not' initiated any proceedings for recovery of Wakf property on the basis of gazette publication as contemplated under Section 66G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 which provides the period of limitation for recovery of Wakf properties to be thirty years.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. It is useful to refer the above provision, which reads as under:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>Notwithstanding anything contained in the <a>Limitation Act, 1963</a>, the period of limitation for any suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf or possession of any interest in such property shall be a period of thirty years and such period shall being to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. It is also useful to refer Section 6, which deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>6. (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil Court in respect of such matter shall be final:',
	(int) 23 => '<p>Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>16. We shall now briefly advert to the judgments on which reliance is placed.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>17. In A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. S. Syed Ali Mulla : AIR1985AP127 , this Court held that <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a> as amended by Act 34 of 1964 applies to all Wakfs created before or after its commencement. The limitation cannot be imparted that the Act applies only to Wakfs registered under the Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the question whether the Wakf is registered or not registered. On appeal against the said judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the ratio laid down therein holding that the Wakf is a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found as Wakf would always retain its character as a Wakf. In other words, once a Wakf always a Wakf and the grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar under the Inams Act does not, in any manner, nullify the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as Wakf. After a Wakf has been created, it continues to be so far all time to come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Mokhasadar does not affect the original character of the Wakf property.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>18. In the case of Desi Kedari's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that when there is no denial of allegations in the plaint, it is open to the Court to proceed under Order X Rule 1 CPC and on the admission of facts, either from the party or his counsel and to proceed further in the matter; and issues have to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>19. While placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel would contend that once the notification is accepted, it amounts to admission of Wakf property and the Court cannot go into the same.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>20. In Nagindas Ramdas 's case (supra), it was held that admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.',
	(int) 29 => '<p>21. By placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant/Board would contend that once the claimants admitted that the land was sold by the Darga Manager, it is deemed to be Wakf property and they are bound by the admission so made. We do not see any force in the above submission for the reason, in the claim statement it was stated after the demise of the husband of the 3rd claimant they have been in possession of the property for the last 56 years, perfected their title by adverse possession also being in peaceful, open and knowledge of the other claimants. The Government recognized their right and also collected stamp duty from the deceased--Basireddy Laxmireddy for the lands sold by the Darga Manager. The third claimant's husband also paid the land revenue in the property Kulam No. 749. From the above claim statement it cannot be inferred that the claimants have admitted that the property in question as notified property.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>22. In the case of Kotaiah's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the <a>Wakf Act, 1954</a>, which provides for appointment of a Commissioner, who after making such enquiry submits his report to the State Government containing the particulars and deciding the nature of disputes during the course of enquiry and publication of list of Wakfs in the Official Gazette as per Section 5 and institution of suits under Section 6 by the persons interested thereon, held that the right to file a suit under Section 6(1) is confined only to the Wakf Board or the Mutawalli or the persons interested in the Wakf. As a consequence the finality of the list of wakfs published would only be as against such persons who are entitled to file a suit. Section 6 has therefore no application of at all to an absolute stranger to a wakf.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>23. The Supreme Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra), held that the purpose of Section 6 is to confine the dispute between the Wakf Board, the Mutawalli and a person interested in the wakf. In Para-39 of the judgment it was held as under:.where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. Such a person is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation laid down in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is not applicable to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of Wakfs under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 can be challenged by him by filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit arises.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>24. In Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat : (2000)2SCC121 , Justice M. Jagannadha Rao speaking for the Bench after considering both the judgments, namely, Muslim Wakfs Board, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (supra) and Sayyed Ali v. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra), held that obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). After pointing out Explanation held that the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. Considering the explanation added to Section 6 by Central Act 69 of 1984 it was held that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board.',
	(int) 33 => '<p>25. From the conspectus of the cases cited above, the principle that emerges is that Wakf is a permanent dedication for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and the property having been found its character as a wakf grant of patta in favour of any third party under the various enactments does not in any manner nullify the earlier dedication. The dedication, if any, is after patta has been granted, and before notifying the same as Wakf property enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act has to be conducted in the manner provided and during such enquiry if any dispute arises, the same has to be decided by the Commissioner of Wakfs as contemplated under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 and after such decision the properties of the wakf has to be notified as contemplated under Section 5.',
	(int) 34 => '<p>26. The evidence, as referred to above, do not establish the dedication of the properties as Wakf property prior to patta granted to the husband of claimant No. 3 nor any evidence has been adduced by the Wakf Board that the Wakf Commissioner appointed under Section 4 followed the procedure before publication of notification under Exs.B5 and B6. It is pertinent to note in Ex.B5 gazette notification the Sy. No. 407/2 has not been included as immovable property of the Wakf and the same were shown in Ex.B7--Errata dated 15-7-1970. The same will not be binding on the claimants 8 to 11, who are successors of claimant No. 3. Once the Wakf Board failed to establish that dedication of the property was prior to grant of patta in favour of the husband of claimant No. 3, and grant said to have been made in its favour under Ex. B14 by Tippu Sultan with specific survey numbers etc., mere notifying the property as Wakf property cannot deprive the third parties of their rights in the said property.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>27. learned Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that once the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is with regard to both numbers, the Reference Court has not answered the reference with regard to entitlement to receive the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 400/A admeasuring Ac.6.00. In Ex.B1 the LAO clearly held that in view of conflicting claims it cannot be decided as to who is legally entitled to receive compensation awarded in Respect of Sy. No. 400/A (Ac.6.00) and Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) of Kutagulla. In view of the dispute in title, it is decided to make a reference to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and deposited the entire compensation in the Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for decision of the Court. The lower Court, though, answered the reference holding that claimants 8 to 11 are entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in Sy. No. 407/5 (Ac.3.26 cts.) has not adverted to any claim made with respect to other Sy. No. 400/A.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>28. In view of the same, while confirming the order made in favour of claimants 8 to 11 the matter is remitted to the lower Court to the limited extent to decide the reference with regard to Sy. No. 400/A after giving opportunity to the parties to claim compensation amount awarded for the said survey number.',
	(int) 37 => '<p>29. Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 38 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 39
$i = (int) 38
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Subject	Property
Court	Andhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On	Feb-23-2007
Case Number	AS No. 423 of 2001
Judge	A. Gopal Reddy and ;K.C. Bhanu, JJ.
Reported in	2007(4)ALD6
Acts	Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 30 and 31(2); Wakf Act, 1954 - Sections 3, 4, 4(5), 5, 5(2), 6, 6(1) and 66G; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sections 66G; Limitation Act, 1963; Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1964; Inams Act; Evidence Act - Sections 58; Panchayat Act - Sections 13; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 10, Rule 1 - Order 14, Rule 1; Muslim law
Appellant	inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board
Respondent	Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors.
Appellant Advocate	Ali Farooq, SC
Respondent Advocate	Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and ;M.V. Suresh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11

inspector-auditor, A.P. Wakf Board Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-land Acquisition Officer and ors. - Court Judgment