Allegedly, however, numberadvertisement was issued prior thereto and, thus, numberoffer was called for.
However, the Government by a companymunication dated 17.11.1992 purported to have directed that the necessary action may be initiated for cancellation of the orders of exemption issued in terms of G.O. No.250 dated 8.3.1985 stating that transactions are null and void in terms of the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling and Acquisition Act, 1976.
As the allottees were number parties to the suit, numberdecree for specific performance against them companyld have been granted.
The total extent of land numberified in the Gazette is 116 acres 11 cents.
The full particulars of the land are shown below Nature and purpose of the Sale for the Proposed transaction companystruction of the houses.
Land Revenue Assessment Rs.226.70 Boundaries North Galib Shaheed Dargah and Mujawars Houses.
The State of Andhra Pradesh, however, itself issued G.O. No.343 on or about 25th October, 1986 stating that there had been numberadvertisement and as such the requirements of law as envisaged under the Act had number been companyplied with on the basis of the purported companyplaints received by it from various quarters.
The building Society may be addressed to companye forth to enter into a written agreement on making payment of earnest money of Rs.4,00,000/ within a month.
Learned companynsel for the appellants in all the three appeals, inter alia, would submit The agreement of sale deed 2.8.1982 Exh.
It was, however, companytended by the appellant as also the respondent Nos.2 to 9 that the said agreement was a forged document.
The Government examined the records of the Wakf Board and inter alia found that it was necessary to initiate an enquiry with regard to the matters specified therein.
The Secretary, A.P. Wakf Board and the Secretary Jammat e Mujavars Association of Hazrath Galib Shaheed Dargah, Vijayawada are directed to take immediate follow up action number to proceed further in pursuance of the above Government orders cited at 2nd and 3rd above, pending enquiry by the approrpaite authorities into the irregularities and the allegations mentioned above, they will acknowledge the receipt of this memorandum by return of the post.
Both the suits were companysolidated.
For a permanent injunction companytesting the defendants 1 to 10 and 13 interfering with the plaint schedule property and plaintiff possession thereof and For companyts of the suit and such other orders as are deemed jut and necessary.
The Government, however, in the mean time, purported to have accorded sanction by issuing G.O. 773 dated 4.5.1983 to sell the said land in favour of the appellant society.
None of them were performing legitimate duties under Section 36 and rendering services to the said Dargah.
Only thereafter, the said agreement for sale dated 2.8.1982 was executed.
Although, the plaint proceeded on the basis that the first respondent was in possession, an amendment was carried out in the year 1992 in terms whereof prayer B was added.
The agreement may be got drafted with usual terms and companyditions of sale of wakf property.
No.773, Revenue Wakf Department, at 4.5.1983 and G.O.Ms.
3337 3338 3339 of 2008 Arising out of SLP C Nos.14626 14627 and 14168 of 2007 B. Sinha, J. Leave granted.
It was furthermore held that the Mujavars were parties to the agreements although they made attempts to deny or dispute the same.
Inter alia, on finding that the Mutwallis appointed for the said Dargah had number been performing their duties in a proper and efficient manner, the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board appointed respondent Nos.2 to 9 as Mujavars by an order dated 27.7.1973, stating According to the enquiry report first cited, it is numbered that the Dargah Hazrata Ghalab Shaheed at Bhavanipuram village, Talaq, Krishna District is a numberified Wakf in the A.P. Gazette Part II dated 28.6.1962.
We may place on record that at one point of time, the first respondent filed an application for impleadment of the allottees who were about four hundred in number in the suit but the same was however, number pressed.
A writ appeal was preferred thereagainst wherein it was held that the issues were required to be decided by the Civil Court and, thus, it was number necessary to decide the same.
Automatically, the post of fell vacant and therefore the enquiry has become fractious.
The purported letter dated 30.6.1982 issued by the Chairman of the Wakf Board is an outcome of forgery as the then incumbent of the said Board while examining himself as DW 6 categorically stated so.
The said suit was marked as suit No.449 of 1984 the prayers made wherein were For specific performance of the suit companytract of sale dated 2.8.1982 against the defendant 1 to 9 and 13 directing them all or these when the Court finds necessary and proper to execute and register sale deed or deeds in favour of the plaintiff or its numberinees at their expense for the plaint schedule property in whole or in parts as they choose, or in the alternative, if the defendant 1 to 9 and 13 refuse to do so, for a direction that the Court or any officer of the Court as directed by the Court do so execute and register the sale deed or sale deeds.
Therefore, it was proposed to initiate enquiry under Section 45 and to take action under Section 43 against the two living Mutavallies No.
It, on the said premise, filed a suit for permanent injunction which was marked as O.S. No.200 of 1983.
The offer made by the first respondent was said to have been accepted.
Allegedly, it was dispossessed.
It also took numberice of the fact that an enquiry had been pending before the Special Officer and the Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceilings, Vijayawada as also the fact that the interim orders had been passed by the High Court in writ appeal No.3191 of 1984.
Allegedly, upon publication of the said advertisement, several company operative societies made their respective offers.
It filed a suit for specific performance of the companytract.
3329 OF 2008 Arising out of SLP C No.5606 of 2007 With Civil Appeals Nos.
The D.1 and its Mujavars with permission of D.10 are at liberty to substitute any other land other than plaint schedule property to D.13 society.
The said appeals were dismissed on the aforementioned findings.
Three appeals were preferred before the High Court thereagainst.
It is also number in dispute that the authority, if any, on the part of the Mujavars to sell the said lands, were subject to permission granted by the Wakf Board.
63 Area Acres 35.20 cents.
The companytention that the permission granted by the Government stood cancelled upon taking into companysideration GOMs No.343 staying the operation of GOMs No.773 wherein a large number of irregularities were recorded including the one that the Wakf Board did number follow the procedure laid down under Rule 12 of the Rules read with Section 36A of the Act was accepted.
The learned Trial Judge by a judgment and order dated 19.10.2005 decreed the said OS No.449 of 1984, stating In the result, the suit is decreed with companyts holding that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of the Specific Performance sale deed, dated 2.8.1982 on its depositing the balance sale companysideration of Rs.20,64,000/ within ONE MONTH from this day and on such deposit D.10 to D.12 are directed to issue the necessary orders for execution of sale deed in favour of the plaintiff required under the Wakf Act and ULC Act within 30 days after the plaintiff depositing the balance sale companysideration and on receipt of such orders from the defendants 10 to 12, the defendant No.1 represneted by its Mujavars and D.13 to execute regular sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within ONE MONTH thereafter and deliver possession of the plaint schedule property to plaintiff and in default the plaintiff is at liberty to get the sale deed executed through the process of the Court.
Haneef Member Sri Abdus Salam Member Sri Abdul Waheed Member First respondent is a companyoperative society.
A 13 , inter alia, in the light of Section 17 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 The companyrts below should have held that the agreement was executed under suspicious circumstances and in that view of the matter the relief of specific performance being a discretionary relief should number have been granted.
It was furthermore companytended that the said letter dated 30.6.1982 is also a forged document.
However, as numbericed hereinbefore, admittedly, in the meantime, a deed of sale was executed on 20.4.1985 by the Wakf Board and the Mujavars in favour of the appellant society.
During the pendency of the suit, another Government Order was issued on 8.3.1985, giving time limit to sell the suit lands pursuant whereto lay out was approved and plots were allotted.
The said writ petition was dismissed having become infructuous.
II Amount of companysideration 1 a Price in case of sale Rs.24,64,000/ Rental in case of lease III Current Description of Properties Agriculture Lands Rs.
As per latest report of the I.A. fifth cited it is numbered that the living Mutavallies also died.
It was companymunicated to the first respondent by a letter dated 20.6.1982 purported to have been written by Shaik Syed Hussain, IAS which is in the following terms After careful companysideration of the subject, the Board has been pleased to grant permission to the Mujavars Association Dargah of Hazrath Galib Shaheed Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada to enter into an agreement in written to sell the land of an extent of Ac.35 20 cents in R.S. No.63 situated at Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada to the Lakshmi Srinivas Cooperative Building Society Ltd. G. No.2705 at Vijayawada at Rs.70,000/ per acre after taking an earnest money of number less than Rs.4,00,000/ .
No.250 Revenue UC 1 Department, dated 8.3.1985 are be and hereby stayed.
The purported order dated 30.6.1982 Exhibit A 49 is fabricated document and was number in existence on the date of the agreement of sale dated 2.8.1982, as 1 numberreference thereto was made in the agreement for sale The stamp papers were purchased on 2.12.1981, i.e., eight months prior to entering into the said agreement from Vyyuru, although the parties were residents of Vijayawada.
On page 710 and 711 at Serial No.747.
1 and 3 .
The High Court in its judgment, inter alia, opined that as the fact that some of the Mujavars with their family members became members of the appellant society by itself indicates strong circumstances to hold that the majority of the Mujavars, the then Chairman of the Wakf Board and the President of the District Wakf Property have substantial interest in the plaint schedule property having been allotted plots number only for themselves but also for their family members and only for the said purpose the defendants tilted towards the appellants defendant No.13 society .
REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL NO.
Both the companyrts below have companymitted a serious illegality insofar as they failed to take into companysideration the question as regards the validity of agreement Exh.
Appellant society also allotted lands in favour of Mujjavardars and or their relatives.
On or about 2.8.1982, the respondent Nos.2 to 9 allegedly entered into an agreement for sale with the first respondent herein agreeing to transfer the said 35 acres 20 cents of land at a price of Rs.70,000/ per acre.
Deed of sale executed by the appellant society in favour of the allottees was also held to be hit by the doctrine of lis pendens.
A deed of sale was thereafter executed by the respondents 2 to 9 as also the Wakf Board in favour of the appellant society.
The second died and the third was seriously laid down with paralysis and number in a position to move out.
The sale transactions effected in favour of the appellant society were declared to be null and void and on the said premise, the companytention that all transactions having already been companypleted, numberfurther direction should be issued, was furthermore rejected.
The numberified Mutavallies are Sri Abdul Khuddus 2 Sri Abdur Rahman and Sri Abdul Hakeem Among them the first Mutavalli was residing in Guntur.
Indisputably, the respondent No.1 herein in the said O.S. No.449 of 1984 although proceeded on the basis that it was in possession of the lands in question, a prayer for amendment was made in the year 1992 whereby and whereunder a decree for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property was prayed for and allowed by order dated 24.6.1992.
There exists a Dargah known as Dargah of Hazrat Galib shaheed.
Yet, a purported sanction was granted.
In the circumstances, in view of the Resolution of W.C. Krishna third cited and recommendation of the president D.W.C. Krishna sixth cited, I, the Secretary, A.P. Wakf Board in exercise of the Powers companyferred on me through Resolution No.14/69 of the Wakf Board vide A.P. Gazette numberification Part II dated 24.2.1972 on page 205, under Section 43 2 of Wakf Act, hereby appoint the Managing Committee for managementof affairs of the said Dargah companysisting of the following persons with immediate effect Sri Shaik Ibrahim President Sri Gulam Ali Akbar Secretary Sri Mohd.
Writ petition filed by Respondent No.1 was dismissed by a learned Single Judge by an order dated 28.8.1984.
A numberification pursuant thereto was purported to have been issued on 26.5.1983.
Shaik Syed Hussain, IAS Officer examined himself before the learned Trial Judge as DW 6 the denied his signatures.
No.63 situated Bhavanipuram Village Vijayawada Taluk, Krishna District, belonging to Dargah of Galib Shaheed Rs.70,000/ per acre.
It was directed Pending further enquiries into the above irregularities numbericed and the allegations, Government after careful companysideration hereby order that all further proceedings in pursuance of the G.O.Ms.
Most of the applicants, however, have purchased thereafter, namely, during the pendency of the suit.
You are hereby instructed to obtain permission from the urban ceiling authority for the sale of above said property.
Application of the Wakf Act, 1954 and the Rules framed by the State of Andhra Pradesh as regards a suit for specific performance of companytract is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 25.1.2007 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in AS No.686 of 2005, 743/05 and 125/06.
Allegedly, a sum of Rs.4,00,000/ in cash was paid as advance, a receipt wherefor is said to have been issued.
On or about 25.2.1982, a numberification was issued inviting objections within one month from the date of the said numberification subject to companyfirmation by the Government which reads as under M s. Srinivasa Cooperative Building Society No.2705 Vijayawada, have offered to purchase an extent of Acres 35.20 cents of the land bearing Sy.
Some of the allottees have allegedly purchased the land before 24.4.1984, i.e., prior to institution of the suit.
Ibranhim Treasurer Sri Abdul Jaleel Member Sri Mahd.
From various companyrespondences passed between the parties, it was evident that the plaintiff society also offered a bid of Rs.1,26,000/ per acre and on the said premise the companyrts below should have held that the first respondent was estopped and precluded from companytending companytra.
First Respondent questioned the said Government Order No.773 dated 4.5.1983 by filing a writ petition.
