Manikonda Jajir Case: Apex Court Upholds Telangana Government’s Right Over 1654 Acres of Land Belonging to Dargah Hussain Shah Vali

(Judicial Quest News Network)

The Apex Court on Monday pronounced its judgement in favour of Telangana Government as the state had subsequently leased out the land for setting up a university, township and other institutions of repute.

This verdict has closed a 16-year-old legal battle between state and other litigants which had started in 2006, after the waqf board issued a errata notification annexing the massive chunk of land to the Dargah Hazrath Hussain Shah Vali, stating it to be waqf property.

A division bench comprising of Justices Hemanth Gupta and V Subramanian held that land dedicated for pious and religious purpose is not immune to its vesting with the state. The Wakf Board is a statutory authority established under the Act and is a “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. A constitution Bench of this Court in a judgment reported as Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur v. Mohan Lal & Ors63 held “that the expression “other authorities” in Article 12 will include all constitutional or statutory authorities on whom powers are conferred by law. It was the Sovereign who

had granted right to do service to Dargah. The Sovereign who had the right to give jagir village for service had a right to take away that right as well. Therefore, the abolition of jagir by the Abolition Regulation was absolute. The decision came as a big relief for the Telangana Government. The state government had appealed to the Apex Court that after loosing out before Andhra Pradesh High Courtin April 2012, the state had claimed before the high Court that as a result of the High Court ruling, it would be required to pay a huge sum running into thousands of crores of rupees as compensations the Telangana Waqf Board.

Earlier the Andhra Pradesh waqf Board (Now Telangana Waqf Board) had issued a notification declaring land as Waqf property. This was challenged before the Apex Court.

The appellants argued that the notification was issued without following any procedure, simply on the grounds that certain lands were not notified previously.

It was further contended that Manikonda village, where the wakf properly was located. Was jagir land and subsequent to the commencement of the abolition of Regulations, conditional grants made in favour of temples, mosques or any religious and pious purposes stood abolished.

On the other hand, the State firmly argued that whether the subject land is wakf property and whether the same was wrongly included in the list of wakf exclusively fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Waqf Tribunal.

Another argument advanced by the respondent was that if a document shows that there is dedication for the pious or charitable or religious purpose, the right of the person dedicating the property is extinguished and the ownership is transferred to the Almighty.

While dealing with the several issues that came up before the Division Bench, a detailed history of the subject matter was rendered in the judgement. The Court discussed the back the background of Hyderabad State and its administration immediately prior to accession and soon thereafter. The Jagir Abolition Regulation, the Atiyat Enquiries Act, the Abolition of Inams Act and the historical background of Waqf vis-à-vis Hyderabad were discussed.

The question to be examined is that power to investigate and determine the nature of property is an administrative function as submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Wakf Board and Dargah or is it a quasi-judicial function as an inquiry is required to be conducted before any property is declared to be Wakf property. It was argued by the appellants that since such order of the Wakf Board is final, subject only to an appeal before the Wakf Tribunal, it has to be a reasoned and speaking order as in appeal, the correctness of the reasons recorded by the Board would be required to be examined.

The said land stood as Jagir but post-Independence the state had abolished jagirs and the land came to vest with the state the bench noted Admittedly, the Government is reflected as the owner of the land in question since the year 1912-13. The Government has exercised its rights of ownership as a successor of the Sovereign. Consequent to Abolition Regulation and payment of commutation under the Commutation Regulation, the State Government had transferred land to the Corporation.

A public notice was also issued to invite objections, if any, to the allotment of the land but since none were received, the Corporation made further allotment to various corporate entities.

However, in terms of the Communication regulation, the court directed the state to pay 90% of the gross basic sum referred under the Commutation Regulation to the dargah these arears have to be calculated and paid to the dargah with in six months, the bench held.

The argument of Mr. Ahmadi is that as per the Nazim Atiyat order, land of jagir village Manikonda was found to be Mashrut-ul-Khidmat land i.e., income from the land was to be used for the service of Dargah that is for pious and religious purposes. The said purpose would be considered as wakf under the Muslim law even before 1961 when the same was

specifically included in the 1954 Act. Thus, a land which is dedicated for pious and religious purposes would continue to be wakf in view of the principle that once a wakf is always a

wakf. It was also argued that the Endowment Regulations framed in the year 1940 excluded Mashrut-ul-Khidmat land from the operation of the statue as per the definition of endowment in Section 2 of the said Act.

The court has further contended that the State Government, as a juristic entity, has a right to protect its property through the writ court, just as any individual could have invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court. Therefore, the State Government is competent to invoke the writ jurisdiction against the action of the Wakf Board to declare the land measuring 1654 acres and 32 guntas as wakf property.

The court has also categorically lay down that land dedicated for pious and religious purpose was not immune from vesting with the State.

The appeal was allowed and the notification of the waqf board was quashed. The land was vested in the State free from any encumbrances.

Senior Advocate V.Giri appeared for the State, while Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi represented the State Waqf Board.

Senior Advocate CS Vaidyanathan argued for the Telangana Infrastructure Development Corporation.