2012 (4) TMI 726 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution.
2. Prima facie case for the Dargah regarding the ownership of Manikonda lands.
3. Balance of convenience and irreparable injury.
4. Effect of errata notification and its retrospective application.
5. Effect of borrowed funds and potential monetary compensation.

Summary:

1. Maintainability of petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution:
The High Court observed that the civil revision petitions were filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, which is not maintainable when a statutory forum is created for redressal of grievances. The Wakf Act, 1995, u/s 83(9) vests revisional jurisdiction in the High Court to examine the correctness, legality, or propriety of the Wakf Tribunal's orders.

2. Prima facie case for the Dargah regarding the ownership of Manikonda lands:
The Dargah, managed by a committee, is a registered Wakf notified in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette. The Wakf Board issued an addendum to include Manikonda lands as Wakf property. The Wakf Tribunal found a prima facie case in favor of the Dargah based on various documents, including Gazette notifications, orders from Nazim-e-Atiyat, and High Court judgments. The Tribunal's finding of prima facie case was supported by the High Court.

3. Balance of convenience and irreparable injury:
The High Court emphasized the importance of maintaining the status quo to prevent multiplicity of litigation and irreparable loss to the Wakf beneficiaries. The court noted that the petitioner had made significant investments and completed substantial construction. However, it held that allowing alienation would lead to further complications and potential harm to public interest, outweighing the petitioner's inconvenience.

4. Effect of errata notification and its retrospective application:
The court held that an errata notification dates back to the original notification's date. The errata issued by the Wakf Board was valid and effective from the date of the original notification, thus including Manikonda lands as Wakf property.

5. Effect of borrowed funds and potential monetary compensation:
The petitioner argued that the injunction would cause irreparable injury due to substantial loans and investments. The court, however, held that public interest and rule of law must prevail over financial stakes. The court also rejected the argument that monetary compensation could replace the need for an injunction, emphasizing the importance of protecting Wakf properties.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the civil revision petitions, except for one which was disposed of with specific observations. The court upheld the Wakf Tribunal's orders, emphasizing the need to protect Wakf properties and maintain the status quo to prevent further complications.