Hyderabad: Much to the relief of the TS Wakf Board, the Supreme Court has held that it was not permissible for a High Court to go into the question of title in review proceedings.
The apex court was hearing a case regarding 93 acres of land claimed by Idgah Guttala Begumpet, located near Hi-Tech City in Hyderabad.
There is a dispute between the Wakf Board and private parties since 1995 with regard to ownership of the land. On December 29, 1988, the erstwhile AP Wakf Board notified 93.11 acres in Sy. Nos. 1 to 9 of Guttala Begumpet as wakf property. The notification was challenged by private parties who claimed that the land belonged to them.
The Wakf Board moved a petition before the Special Land Grabbing Court seeking to declare these persons as land grabbers.
The Wakf Board also approached the Hyderabad High Court. A single judge of the High Court set aside the notification of the Wakf Board on the ground that it did not follow the procedure laid down under law.
The Land Grabbing Court dismissed the petition of the Wakf Board, refusing to declare the persons on the land as landgrabbers.
When these issues came before a division bench, the bench ruled on December 3, 2010 that the notification was not in accordance with law and the findings recorded by the Land Grabbing Court cannot be upheld and said the title can only be decided by a competent court in a properly constituted suit or other proceeding. Aggrieved by the division bench order, the Wakf Board moved the Supreme Court.
A two-member bench of Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel and Justice Uday Umesh Lalit disposed of the appeal, stating that it was not permissible for the High Court to go into the question of title in review proceedings.
The bench said, “We set aside the impugned order but leave it open to the parties to raise all questions relating to their respective title in appropriate proceedings in accordance with the law.”
As for the appeal regarding the notification, the bench held that, “We do not see any ground to interfere with the finding recorded by the High Court.”
