By PTI
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday held that a state, being a juristic entity, can also invoke writ powers, availed by citizens against states for the protection of fundamental rights, to enforce the right to protect its property and set aside a high court verdict upholding notification declaring a huge parcel of land as wakf property in Telangana.
In a victory to Telangana, which pursued the litigation initiated by the then Andhra Pradesh (AP) government, the apex court allowed its appeal against the 2012 judgement of the state high court.
The high court had upheld Errata (corrected) notification of the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board of 2006 to declare 1654 Acres and 32 guntas of state land as wakf property’, saying that when once the property is held to be wakf, it always, retains its character as a wakf and the grant of patta to service, inamdars and persons in possession, does not in any manner change, its character.
A bench comprising justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian, in its 156-page verdict, dealt with historical facts, laws, and judgements related to wakf property and allowed the appeal of the Telangana government against the notification of its own wakf board to declare a huge piece of land as wakf property.
“In view of…, we pass the following order: i) The Civil Appeals are allowed. The orders passed by the High Court are set aside. ii) The Errata notification dated March 13, 2006 is quashed. The Land admeasuring 1654 Acres and 32 guntas vests with the state and/or Corporation free from any encumbrance…,” the verdict, penned by Justice Gupta, said.
The bench dealt with the opposition that the state government cannot come to the constitutional court invoking the writ jurisdiction, which is available to citizens against the State, for ensuring its property rights.
Writs are issued usually by high courts and the Supreme Court against or to the state for ensuring the fundamental rights of citizens.
“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 bench held.
The judgement also dealt with the meaning of errata notification issued by the wakf board in 2006 to allegedly rectify the mistakes done almost 17 years ago.
“The question now to be examined is whether the (Wakf) Board could issue the Errata notification after a lapse of 17 years from the date of first notification, i.e., February 9, 1989. The exercise leading to the notification started with a letter from Syed Safiullah Hussaini, the Mutawalli on January 30, 2005. He is the mutawalli mentioned in the first notification published in the year 1989. Since the notification was issued with him as Mutawalli, then his inaction for 17 long years speaks volumes of his bona-fide in initiating the process to include the large area of land as wakf,” it said, adding, “‘Errata’ is a term of French origin which means a thing that should be corrected. It means a mistake in printing or writing.”
The judgement said in the facts of the present case, the Errata notification is nothing but a fresh notification altogether.
“As against 5506 sq. yards of land notified as wakf property in the year 1989, large area of 1654 acres and 32 guntas of land could not be included under the guise of an errata notification as it is not a case of the clerical or arithmetical mistake but the inclusion of large area which could not be done without conducting a proper Inquiry either under Section 32(2) (n)…on the basis of survey report which was called by the State Government by appointing a Survey Commissioner,” it said.
The huge parcel of land which was declared as wakf property through the 2006 notification, was situated in village Manikonda in Telangana and many private parties were allotted land by the state government for purposes like setting up a university and technology parks.
The high court, while dismissing the challenge of the state government to the notification, had held that “a wakf is presumed by the user and whatever properties are treated as wakf cannot be reversed because it always remains a wakf.”
Reversing the verdict, the apex court said, “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.”
