Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Telangana High Court, in a recent ruling, has quashed the plea by the Telangana State Wakf Board, Hyderabad claiming right over a 5 Star Hotel in the city.

A division bench comprising the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti, noted that “the initiation of the proceeding by the Wakf Board is in excess of jurisdiction,” while issuing a writ of prohibition against the Wakf Board.

A contentious legal dispute emerged as the petitioners, Viceroy Hotels, presently known as Hotel Marriot, challenged the actions of the Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board, particularly regarding an addendum notification issued on 23rd August 2007 and the initiation of proceedings under Section 54 of the Wakf Act, 1995.

The Wakf Board initially conducted an inquiry under the Wakf Act, 1954, determining through a resolution on 5th October 1958 that the subject property did not belong to the Wakf. However, subsequent claims arose, notably when Abdul Gafoor filed a civil suit in 1964 asserting the property's Wakf status. Despite legal challenges and court interventions, including a High Court order in 1968, the Wakf Board persisted in its claims.

Over the years, the Wakf Board issued notices and initiated proceedings, with the most recent action being taken in 2014. Despite previous court rulings and objections raised by the petitioners, the Wakf Board pursued the matter, leading to the current case.

The petitioners, alarmed by a newspaper report indicating the Wakf Board's intention to take action against them, swiftly responded, highlighting past adjudications favouring their stance. However, undeterred, the Wakf Board pressed forward with legal proceedings, leading to the filing of the current writ petitions challenging its actions.

Recognising the urgency and sensitivity of the matter, the court issued an interim order prohibiting the Wakf Tribunal from making any adverse rulings against the petitioners during the ongoing proceedings.

The court referenced the provisions of the Wakf Act, 1954, highlighting Section 27, which empowers the Wakf Board to determine whether a property is a Wakf property. Importantly, the decision of the Board under Section 27(1) is deemed final unless revoked or modified by a civil court. The court noted “In the instant case, the Wakf Board conducted an enquiry under Section 27 of the 1954 Act and determined vide resolution dated 05.10.1958 that the subject property is not a wakf property.”

Further the court highlighted a previous ruling in the matter made by the Andhra Pradesh High Court which, by an order dated September 05, 1968, held that “once determination has been held under Section 27 of the 1954 Act that subject property is not a wakf property, it would not be permissible for the Wakf Board to examine the issue again. Accordingly, a writ of prohibition was issued.”

The court observed a recurring pattern of action by the Wakf Board concerning the subject property. Despite previous determinations and legal interventions, the Board persisted in claiming the property as Wakf land. Initially, the Wakf Board issued a notice under Section 54(1) of the 1995 Act alleging encroachment by the petitioners. The petitioners responded by denying the Board's claim, but no further action was taken for seven years. Subsequently, after this extended period, another notice was issued in 2005, again asserting that the subject land was Wakf property. The petitioner provided a detailed representation contesting this claim. However, the Wakf Board waited until 2014 to initiate eviction proceedings under Section 54 of the 1995 Act.

The court also reviewed the validity of an errata notification issued by the Wakf Board after twenty-four years. It clarified that errata notifications are intended for correcting typographical or clerical errors and cannot expand the scope of the original notification. In this case, the court found that the errata notification essentially constituted a fresh notification, as it included a significantly larger area of land. Such an action, it concluded, went beyond permissible corrections and required a proper inquiry or survey report.

The court determined that the notification issued on July 12, 1984, and the addendum issued on August 23, 2007, did not merely clarify the previous notification. Instead, they amounted to a substitution of the original notification, which, after a lapse of 24 years, was not permissible under the law.

It was further held that “the petitioners cannot be allowed to suffer legal injury merely because they have a statutory remedy available under the 1995 Act, especially in a case where the initiation of proceeding itself is vitiated in law.”

Consequently, the court quashed the addendum notification issued by the Wakf Board and issued a writ of prohibition, directing the Board not to proceed further with the eviction proceedings.

 

Cause Title: Viceroy Hotels Limited and others v Telangana State Wakf Board, Hyderabad [WP No. 11730 of 2014]