Emaar got 400 acres of land
Tags:
AP HC bench made it clear that once a property is declared as Wakf, it is vested with the Almighty, and even the Muthawalli, being a manager, has no right. Even a service Inam does not alter the nature and character of a Wakf property. Of the 1,600 acres, the government had allotted 400 acres to Emaar, 108 acres to Lanco Hills, 54 acres to Microsoft, 50 acres to Infosys, 30 acres to Wipro, 5 acres to VJIL and 7 acres to Polaris and others by way of auction and nominations.
The state government had contended that the notification of the Wakf Board was baseless and depended on the Muntakhab (a record of properties belonging to Muslim religious institutions). It was alleged that some of the land records were also tampered with to show that the land belonged to the Dargah.
The Wakf Board, on the other hand, submitted that the Muntakhab of the Wakf published in the Gazette on February 9, 1989, did not contain the entire extent of land held by the Wakf and therefore, the Board had corrected the same by issuing an errata in April 2006. The Board contended that though there was clear evidence that this land indeed was Wakf property, the authorities chose to suppress the facts and issued a notification in 2005 for auctioning the lands. There was an AP High Court judgment and an Hatiyaz order, both clearly stating that these were Wakf lands even prior to the auctions.
Referring to the suit by the Dargah management and a private person pending before the Wakf Tribunal and also writs filed by Majlis MLA Akbaruddin Owaisi, H.A. Rahman of YSR Congress and Mohammed Baig, the Bench stated: “It would not be proper to dwell into the merits of the case, which might have the effect of rendering the remedy before the tribunal.” The bench granted liberty to the persons acting pro bono publico to approach the tribunal.
While dismissing the civil revision petitions, the Bench observed that there was no balance of convenience in favour of the builders and entire legal issues raised could be agitated before the Tribunal. The bench held that the observations made in this order would not have any binding on the tribunal and it could independently decide on the matter.
Post new comment