Waqf Board Cannot Include Property In Prohibited List Under Section 22-A Registration Act If Civil Court Has Already Declared It Is Not Waqf Property: Andhra Pradesh High Court

"The executive cannot sit in an appeal or review or revise a judicial order. The executive has to obey judicial orders." Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling dated October 5, 2026, held that once a competent Civil Court has adjudicated and declared that a property is not a Waqf property, the Waqf Board cannot unilaterally include such land in the prohibited list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908.

A bench of Justice V. Sujatha observed that such administrative actions, despite a binding judicial decree, amount to a "travesty of the rule of law" and an attempt to reopen settled litigation.

The petitioners claimed ownership of land in Kurnool District, tracing their title back to a 1950 sale deed. Notably, the Waqf Board had previously filed a suit in 1969 seeking recovery of possession of the same land, which was dismissed by the Civil Court in 1970 with a categorical finding that the property was not Waqf property. Decades later, following the death of the petitioners' father, the Sub-Registrar refused to register transfer documents, citing a 2016 Waqf Board notification that identified the land as Waqf property.

The primary question before the court was whether the Waqf Board could override a final judgment and decree of a competent Civil Court by invoking powers under the Waqf Act, 1995 to notify the land as a Waqf property. The court was further tasked with determining if the principle of res judicata barred the Board from re-agitating the status of the land, and whether the petitioners were entitled to have the property removed from the prohibited list maintained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act.

Binding Nature of Civil Decrees

The Court emphasized that a judgment rendered by a competent Civil Court operates as res judicata and attains finality. The Waqf Board, having been a party to the 1969 suit, was bound by the decree that held the property was not a Waqf asset. The court noted that the Board’s subsequent attempt to include the land in a prohibited list via an "addendum notification" issued years after the court decree was an illegal exercise of power.

Executive Cannot Sit Over Judicial Orders

The Bench underscored that the executive wing of the State is bound to respect the findings of the judiciary. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. K.M. Shankarappa, the Court noted that the legislature may, in specific cases, nullify a judicial order through appropriate legislation, but the executive possesses no such authority. The administrative decision to classify the property as prohibited directly contradicted the judicial determination.

"The executive cannot sit in an appeal or review or revise a judicial order. The executive has to obey judicial orders."

No Jurisdiction for Waqf Tribunal

The Court further rejected the argument that the petitioners should have approached the Waqf Tribunal. Under Section 7(5) of the Waqf Act, 1995, a Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to determine a matter that is already the subject matter of a proceeding or decree passed by a Civil Court before the Act’s commencement. Since the title dispute had already been settled by a Civil Court, relegating the petitioners to the Tribunal would be a "futile exercise."

Constitutional Right to Property

While acknowledging that property rights are no longer fundamental, the Court reiterated that they remain a Constitutional Right under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. The Court ruled that the inclusion of the petitioners' land in the prohibited list, despite a clear judicial decree in their favor, constituted an infringement of their constitutional rights and an act of arbitrary governance.

"The inclusion of the land in the list of prohibited properties... is not only illegal and arbitrary but also misuses the powers vested in it."

Concluding that the impugned notifications and letters were issued in complete disregard of settled legal principles, the High Court allowed the writ petitions. The court set aside the proceedings dated November 16, 2016, and December 19, 2017, and directed the authorities to de-notify the subject property from the list of prohibited properties maintained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act.

Date of Decision: 05 October 2026