Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

Gazette Notification Declaring Land as Wakf Does Not Bind Private Owners Who Were Not Notified: Andhra Pradesh High Court

09 May 2025 7:18 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


“Strangers to Wakf Need Not Challenge Notification Within One Year – Limitation Not Applicable When There Is No Notice”: - In a landmark judgment Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that mere publication of land as Wakf property in a gazette under the Wakf Act, 1954, does not bind private individuals who were not given notice during the survey proceedings. The Court held that such parties cannot be barred by limitation from challenging the Wakf status, and left it open to the appellants to seek appropriate civil remedies for declaration of title.

The Division Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam clarified: “A stranger to a Wakf is not required to file any suit for declaration of his title within a year from publication in the gazette. The limitation under Section 6 of the Wakf Act, 1954 does not apply to such persons.”

“Declaration of Wakf Status Without Notice Is Not Binding on Private Owners”
The case arose from land in Survey No. 327 of Palamaner Village, Chittoor District, claimed by the Wakf Board as Inam land granted under Title No. 1979 for maintaining a religious site. However, the appellants had been residing there for decades, having constructed houses based on registered sale deeds, including one dating back to 1946, prior to the enactment of the Wakf Act itself.
When the Sub-Registrar refused to register further sale transactions, citing a 2012 Wakf Board letter and a 1962 gazette notification, the appellants challenged the decision, asserting:n“The land is private patta land, and we have been in uninterrupted possession for more than 68 years. No notice was ever served to us in the Wakf survey.”
The Wakf Board, in contrast, claimed the land was granted for religious purposes and any sales by the family of the original Muthawali were illegal.

“Mere Notification Under Section 5 Cannot Extinguish Private Rights Without Due Process”
The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s seminal judgment in Board of Muslim Wakfs, Rajasthan v. Radha Krishna (AIR 1979 SC 289):“Where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property, his right, title and interest cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list. He is not required to file a suit within a year.”

The Bench found that this principle remains applicable even though the 1954 Wakf Act has been replaced by the 1995 Act:
“The publication in the gazette was made under the Wakf Act, 1954. The decision of the Supreme Court under the 1954 Act holds that third-party rights are not automatically extinguished by such notification.”

“Writ Not Maintainable, But Civil Suit Remedy Available – Limitation Not a Bar”
While upholding the learned Single Judge’s dismissal of the writ petition, the High Court emphasized: “The appellants are free to file a suit for declaration of their title and challenge the notification treating the property as Wakf. Limitation will not apply as they’ve been contesting since knowledge of the notification.”

The Court granted three months to the appellants to file such a suit and directed that: “Status quo shall be maintained for three months, and if a suit is filed within that time, it will continue till disposal.”

“Registration Block Based on Wakf Claim Not Final – Buyers Can Seek Deletion from List”
The Bench also noted the Full Bench ruling in Vinjamuru Rajagopala Chary v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2016 (2) ALD 236 FB), which permitted affected landowners to apply for deletion of their land from the prohibited list under Section 22-A(c) of the Registration Act.
“It is open to the appellants to move the Wakf Board for deletion of their land from the list. The concerned authorities are bound to decide such applications within six weeks.”

In a measured and balanced ruling, the Andhra Pradesh High Court reaffirmed that rights of long-standing private occupants cannot be overridden by Wakf notifications issued without notice. Though the writ appeal was disposed of procedurally, the Court ensured substantial justice by allowing the appellants access to civil remedies without limitation barriers.
“Mere registration of a document does not confer title—but nor does a gazette entry under the Wakf Act extinguish it without adjudication.”

Date of Decision: May 5, 2025
 

Latest Legal News