Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court dismissed a writ appeal filed by the state Wakf Board. The panel of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar also allowed two connected writ petitions filed by Eco-Green Associates and Y.S. Ramaswamy on the matter. Earlier a single judge allowed a writ plea by which a list of properties situated at Narsapur and Siddipet taluks of Medak district as properties belonging to the Wakf Board was quashed. The connected writ petitions before the panel sought denotifying lands in Sikinblapur village, Shivampet mandal, and Medak and sought a direction to the imams’ tribunal to issue pattadar passbooks in their favour. One Aziz Bee filed applications for an occupancy rights certificate. When it was rejected, she unsuccessfully canvassed for the same in the High Court. The land in question of various survey numbers appears to have been purchased by access engineers and mortgaged with banks. Solithro Private Limited purchased the land in an auction and sales certificates were issued in their favour. Subsequently, the land was declared as wakf property but a single judge quashed the notification.
The panel faulted the survey leading to the land being notified as wakf property as contrary to the Wakf Act, 1995 since it was allegedly done under the old Wakf Act, 1954. Dealing with the intricate legal issue, Chief Justice Aradhe said that the effect of repeal of a statute is to destroy all inchoate rights and all causes of action that may have arisen under its provisions. When repeal is followed by a fresh legislation, the court has to look into the provisions of the new Act, but only for the purpose of determining whether they indicate a different intention. The line of enquiry would not be whether the new Act expressly keeps alive the old rights and liabilities, but whether it manifests an intention to destroy them.
The panel found that the re-enacted enactment, the 1995 Act, did not contain any intention incompatible with or unitary to the provisions of the repealed Act and found that the survey under the old Act was valid under the new Act. However, the notification of 2001 was issued under the old Act, and “the same is, therefore, nullity.” Refusing to spike the writ petitions on the ground of alternative remedy, the panel said that the alternative remedy has been held by the Supreme Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely: where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; where there is failure of principles of natural justice; or where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. Since the notification was void, they observed that the writ petition was maintainable.
HC Seeks Records of PACS Person In-charge
Justice C.V. Bhasker Reddy of the Telangana High Court required the assistant registrar of the Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society (PACS), Ramadugu, and others to produce records with regard to the appointment of the person in-charge. It was the complaint of the petitioner that the appointment was based on the premise that the petitioners had resigned from the managing committee of the PACS. The petitioners contended that the signatures were obtained for the purposes of a meeting to consider a no-confidence motion and were instead used as letters of resignation. Senior counsel Hemandranath Reddy said it was a colourable exercise of power and would not withstand judicial scrutiny. The judge summoned the records in the matter to ascertain the serious allegation in this regard.
