The Telangana High Court held that revenue authorities cannot retain land entries in a prohibitory register based on a Waqf Gazette notification that has been set aside by a binding judicial order. The Court affirmed that such continued inclusion violates Article 300A of the Constitution and amounts to an illegal hindrance on property rights, directing deletion of the subject lands within four weeks.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Pasham Lakshman Goud and others, challenge the continued inclusion of their lands in the prohibitory register maintained by the Sub-Registrar, Farooqnagar, as Waqf property, despite a series of judgments of this Court holding that the lands are not Waqf.
Key Facts
- The subject lands measure Acs.11.06 guntas in Survey No.626, Acs.16.09 guntas in Survey No.638, Acs.3.06 guntas in Survey No.639 and Acs.2.05 guntas in Survey No.640 of Chantanapally Village, Farooqnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, totalling Acs.32.26 guntas.
- These lands were notified as Waqf property under A.P. Gazette No.36-A dated 04.09.2003 at Serial No.30908.
- In W.P.No.20293 of 2011 and W.P.No.21889 of 2023, this Court (orders dated 20.03.2024) set aside the said Gazette notification, holding that the lands do not constitute Waqf property.
- The petitioners’ predecessor, Nadikudi Ramaiah, was recognised as a protected tenant by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal in Case No.230 of 1977; his legal representatives subsequently succeeded to the tenancy rights.
- Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 purchased portions of the land (Acs.11.08 guntas and Acs.4.15 guntas) from the legal representatives of Nadikudi Ramaiah by registered sale deeds dated 18.07.2019 and 09.06.2020 (Document Nos.20501/2019 and 7467/2020).
- An order dated 07.03.2020 permitted conversion of Acs.11.08 guntas from agricultural to non-agricultural use.
- On the basis of the Gazette notification, the entire extent was entered as ‘wakf land’ in the prohibitory register; consequently the sale deeds were unilaterally cancelled on 07.07.2022.
- The Waqf Board, by letter dated 15.04.2024, acknowledged that the Gazette notification had been set aside but stated its CEO lacks statutory power to delete the entry, advising the petitioners to approach the Sub-Registrar.
- Despite repeated representations to Respondent Nos.7 and 8 (the revenue authorities), the entry has not been removed.
- The present writ petition seeks a writ of mandamus to delete the lands from the prohibitory register, declare the respondents’ action illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Indian Registration Act, 1908 and Article 300A, and to secure consequential correction of official records.
Procedural History
- 04.09.2003: A.P. Gazette No.36-A notifies the lands as Waqf property.
- 2011: W.P.No.20293 of 2011 filed challenging the notification.
- 2023: W.P.No.21889 of 2023 filed challenging the notification as it relates to the subject lands.
- 20.03.2024: Orders passed in W.P.No.20293 of 2011 and W.P.No.21889 of 2023 set aside the Gazette notification dated 04.09.2003.
- 07.07.2022: Sale deeds of the petitioners were cancelled on the basis of the entry in the prohibitory register.
- 15.04.2024: Waqf Board’s letter to the petitioners regarding lack of power to delete the entry.
- 15.09.2026: Judgment pronounced in the present writ petition (WP No.2111 of 2026).
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to delete/remove the subject lands (Acs.32.26 guntas) from the prohibitory register, a declaration that the respondents’ action is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Indian Registration Act, 1908 and Article 300A, and consequential correction of the relevant records.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether, after this Court had set aside the Gazette notification dated 04.09.2003 that originally classified the subject lands as Waqf property, the revenue authorities could lawfully continue to retain an entry of those lands in the prohibitory register, and whether such continued retention amounted to a violation of Article 300A of the Constitution and an illegal hindrance on the petitioners’ property rights.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners relied on the binding nature of the Court’s orders in W.P.No.20293 of 2011 and W.P.No.21889 of 2023, which had set aside the Gazette notification, thereby removing any legal basis to treat the lands as Waqf. They invoked Article 300A, which protects persons from deprivation of property save in accordance with law, and the Indian Registration Act, 1908, which requires that entries in official registers reflect the true legal position. Citing East India Commercial Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, AIR 1962 SC 1893, they submitted that an administrative authority cannot act contrary to a judicial declaration that has attained finality. They further pointed out that the Waqf Board’s own letter dated 15.04.2024 admitted the notification’s annulment and conceded its lack of power to delete the entry, underscoring that the duty to conform the record lies with the revenue authorities.
For the Respondent
The Standing Counsel for the Waqf Board conceded that the Gazette notification had been set aside by this Court but argued that its Chief Executive Officer possesses no statutory authority to delete the entry from the prohibitory register, and therefore the Board could not be compelled to effect such deletion. The revenue authorities (represented by the Assistant Government Pleader) maintained that the entry in the prohibitory register reflects the official record and that, absent a specific statutory power, they cannot unilaterally alter it; they urged the petitioners to seek relief through the appropriate statutory channels rather than via mandamus.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by reiterating the principle that a judicial declaration of a competent court is binding on all authorities subordinate to its jurisdiction. It quoted East India Commercial Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, AIR 1962 SC 1893, to hold that “the law declared by a High Court is absolutely binding upon all authorities and Tribunals subordinate to its jurisdiction within that State and as such, an administrative authority cannot initiate or continue administrative proceedings that run directly contrary to a binding judicial precedent.”
“Once this Court has set aside the Gazette notification dated 04.09.2003 in respect of the subject lands, the official respondents cannot continue an entry which has the effect of perpetuating the very declaration which has already been annulled by this Court.”
The Court noted that the Gazette notification dated 04.09.2003, which had formed the sole basis for treating the lands as Waqf property, had been set aside in the earlier writ petitions. Consequently, the continued inclusion of the lands in the prohibitory register lacked any legal foundation.
The Court further observed that the Waqf Board’s letter dated 15.04.2024, while acknowledging the annulment of the notification, expressly stated that its Chief Executive Officer had no power to delete the entry. However, the Court held that such a lack of statutory power could not justify the perpetuation of an illegal consequence.
“The contention of the Waqf Board that it has no power to delete the entry cannot be a justification for continuation of the illegal consequence.”
Drawing on Article 300A, the Court emphasized that no person shall be deprived of property except in accordance with law. The continued registration of the lands as Waqf property, despite the judicial declaration to the contrary, amounted to an unlawful hindrance on the petitioners’ enjoyment and disposition of their property.
The Court also referred to the Indian Registration Act, 1908, which mandates that entries in official registers reflect the true legal position. An entry that contradicts a final judicial order cannot be regarded as legally valid.
Finally, the Court relied on the doctrine of mandamus under Article 226, citing Comptroller and Auditor General of India v. K.S. Jagannathan, (1986) 2 SCC 679, and Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Mukta Ji Vandas Ji Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V.R. Rudani, (1989) 2 SCC 691, to affirm that the writ is available to compel a public authority to perform its duty of maintaining legally accurate records and to prevent arbitrary exercise or non-exercise of statutory power.
Thus, the Court concluded that the respondents were under a duty to delete the erroneous entry and to bring the prohibitory register into conformity with the binding judicial orders.
The Verdict
The Court allowed the writ petition, holding that the continued inclusion of the subject lands in the prohibitory register on the basis of a Gazette notification already set aside is unsustainable and violates Article 300A. It directed the revenue authorities (Respondent Nos.7 and 8) to delete/remove the lands measuring Acs.32.26 guntas from the prohibitory register within four (4) weeks of receiving a copy of the order. No costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Judicial Declarations Bind Administrative Records
Once a competent court sets aside a notification or order that forms the basis of an administrative entry, subordinate authorities must align their records with that judicial determination. The principle from East India Commercial Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs makes such binding effect absolute within the State’s jurisdiction.
Duty to Conform Official Records to Court Orders
Revenue authorities and other statutory bodies have a positive duty to correct entries that contradict a final judicial declaration, even if they lack express statutory power to do so. Failure to act amounts to perpetuating an annulled legal basis and invites writ relief of mandamus.
Limitations of Officials’ Statutory Powers Do Not Excuse Non-Compliance
An official’s lack of specific statutory power to amend a register does not justify retaining an erroneous entry; the obligation to comply with judicial orders supersedes procedural constraints. Petitioners may seek mandamus to compel the concerned authority to perform its public duty of maintaining legally accurate records.
