Burden on Waqf Board To Prove Land Ownership: High Court

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court has made it clear that the burden was on the Waqf Board to sustain its notification issued declaring any land as Waqf property. When such notification was challenged, the Waqf Board had to place before the court the relevant records establishing compliance with the mandatory procedure followed under the Waqf Act.

Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty faulted the Waqf Board for its failure to discharge the burden by producing the survey and enquiry records required to justify the impugned notification in regard to several parcels of land in Survey No.s 893, 894, 895, 896, 897 and others in Toopran, then in Medak district, which were declared Waqf properties. The court consequently held that the notification was unsustainable.

The judge was dealing with a petition filed by Syeda Ghousiya Sultana and 38 others challenging Gazette Notification No.46-A dated December 20, 2001, regarding the properties.

The petitioners claimed rights over the land and contended that they had revenue records, pattadar passbooks and title deeds, besides being in possession of the properties. They argued that the land parcels were included in the prohibited properties list without notice, enquiry or an opportunity of hearing.

The Waqf Board, however, contended that a survey had been conducted in the 1960s under the Waqf Act, 1954, and that public announcements were made through “tom-tom” before the land parcels were identified as Waqf properties.

The High Court found that the board had not placed before it the survey report, proceedings of the Survey Commissioner, inquiry material, objections, proof of public notice or other contemporaneous records demonstrating compliance with the statutory procedure.

The court observed that the survey and enquiry contemplated under the Act were substantive requirements and could not be treated as an empty formality. Mere publication of a Gazette notification, it said, could not substitute the statutory process that preceded such notification.

Holding that the Waqf Board failed to establish the foundational statutory requirements for declaring the petitioners’ properties as waqf, the court set aside the Gazette Notification.

HC Slaps Rs 5,000 Costs on ACB for Delay in Recalling Key Witness

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court has imposed costs of Rs 5,000 on the Anti-Corruption Bureau (AC) after finding that the prosecution had failed to diligently pursue the trial of a case filed against a police inspector for allegedly demanding and accepting illegal gratification. The reason for imposing costs was that the prosecution had belatedly sought to recall a key witness, whose evidence had been closed nearly nine years ago.

Justice J. Sreenivas Rao was dealing with a criminal petition filed by D. Balaji, inspector of police at Dichpally Circle of Nizamabad, the accused in the ACB case. He challenged the trial court orders, which had allowed to recall the key witness for the purpose of cross-examination. His contention was that the trial court, without properly considering the contentions raised by him in the counter, erroneously allowed the petition.

Justice Rao noted that Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Court conferred wide powers on criminal courts to summon, examine, recall or re-examine a witness at any stage when such evidence was essential for a just and proper decision. The necessity and materiality of the evidence, rather than the stage of the proceedings, were the decisive considerations, the judge said. Hence, the court found no fault in recalling the key witness of the case.

At the same time, the judge found fault with the prosecution and observed that it had not conducted the proceedings with due diligence. The court noted that the evidence of key witness had been closed in 2017, the first recall petition was dismissed in November 2024, and the second petition was filed thereafter while the case had reached the stage of arguments.

Holding that the accused should not suffer for the mistake of counsel or prosecutor, the court confirmed the trial court's order subject to payment of costs.

Nizam properties partition issue- HC declined to interfere in the proceeding before trial court

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court has declined to intervene in proceedings before the trial court with regard to a suit filed for partition and separate possession of five properties associated with the Nizam VII Mir Osman Ali Khan. The scheduled properties were the Falaknuma Palace, Chowmohalla Palace, Purani Haveli and the King Kothi Palace here, and the Harewood and Cedars Bungalow situated in Tamil Nadu.

The suit had also sought a declaration that a registered sale deed pertaining to property of King Koti / Nazri Bagh Palace was void and illegal. The property was sold to the private infrastructure company.

The suit was filed before the Civil Court by Najaf Ali Khan, son of the late Prince Hasham Jah Bahadur and grandson of Mir Osman Ali Khan Bahadur, the Seventh Nizam. However, the rival parties — Azmet Shah, son of Prince Mukarram Jah — sought dismissal of the suit on technical grounds, regarding the value of the suit filed by Najaf Ali under Section 34(1) of the Telangana Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, 1956, on the market value of his alleged share. Najaf Ali Khan invoked Section 34(2) of the Act, taking the plea of constructive joint possession and being a co-owner and thereby paid only the fixed court fee envisaged.

As the civil court dismissed the requests, they approached the High Court by filing civil revision petitions.

Justice P. Sam Koshy heard the matter and held that Azmet Shah and others had failed to make out a case warranting intervention under Article 227 of the Constitution. The court observed that the supervisory jurisdiction could not be converted into an appellate jurisdiction and that intervention was warranted only in cases of jurisdictional error or findings contrary to law resulting in perversity.

The court held that the question of whether court fee was required to be paid under Section 34(1) or Section 34(2) could be determined after the parties led evidence during the trial. The court also refrained from examining the merits of the competing claims in detail, observing that any such finding at the revision stage could affect the outcome of the main suit.