The Supreme Court has restored a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the Telangana State Wakf Board over ‘Mafi Inam lands’ adjoining a Mosque in Ranga Reddy District, holding that there was no cloud over the title of the property. The Court set aside a High Court judgment that had dismissed the Wakf Board’s suit, and made the injunction granted by the Trial Court absolute.
A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran also dismissed two contempt petitions filed by the respondent, noting that he had no subsisting interest in the property.
Background
The Wakf Board, which was in management of the Qutub Shahi Mosque along with the Dargah of Shah Amanullah Sahab, a Graveyard and a well in Survey Number 89, Hameedullah Nagar, Shamsabad Mandal, had filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with its possession. The suit scheduled property measured 16 acres and 5 guntas, out of a total extent of 37 acres 25 guntas across various survey numbers.
The Trial Court decreed the suit, relying on the Survey Commissioner’s report and a gazette notification identifying the entire extent as a wakf institution. It found that the pahanis produced by the defendants for 1956-57 to 1958-59 described the land as maafi inam property, a service inam meant for the maintenance of a waqf institution.
The High Court reversed the decree. It held that without an occupancy certificate under the Telangana Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, or pahanis or revenue records, the property could not be said to be wakf property. Relying on Balkrishna Dattatraya Galande v. Balkrishna Rambharose Gupta, it held that an injunction cannot be granted unless the plaintiff proves possession, and affirmed the possession of the defendants.
Submissions
Senior Counsel K. Parmeshwar appeared for the Wakf Board, while Senior Counsel Naveen Pahwa appeared for the respondents. The respondents also relied on Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy, which summarises the law on suits for prohibitory injunction concerning immovable property.
Supreme Court Finds No Cloud On Wakf Board’s Title
Examining both precedents, the Court noted that Anathula Sudhakar involved rival sale deeds and inconsistent claims of title, while Balkrishna Dattatraya Galande turned on a dispute over actual possession. It held that neither situation arose in the present case, observing, “Neither a cloud on title as coming out from the first cited case or a dispute on actual possession as had regulated the decision second cited, arise herein.”
The Court referred to the 1968 Survey Commissioner’s report, which had considered and rejected an objection from the grandson of the person entered in the revenue records. The report found that the land had been entrusted to continue service to the Mosque and Dargah, that those in possession had no right to sell it, and that 42 acres and 3 guntas of inam lands were wakf land. The Court noted that the defendants’ vendors never challenged this order, and that the defendants claimed possession only through an agreement of sale and a general power of attorney.
The Bench held, “We do not think there is any cloud over the title of the suit scheduled property and the alleged vendors of the defendants, if in possession was only entrusted the said land for the purpose of maintenance of the Mosque, the Dargah and the Graveyard.”
Turning to the 1989 notification under the Wakf Act, 1954, the Court noted that the limitation for raising a dispute was one year from publication of the list of wakfs, judicially read as running from the date of knowledge. It found that “there is no dispute raised by the vendors of the defendants or the defendants themselves within the limitation period of one year from Annexure P2 nor is a contention raised of first knowledge to be on a subsequent date.”
Contempt Petitions Dismissed
The respondent had filed two contempt petitions alleging violation of the Court’s status quo order dated 06.02.2024, one over religious activities and the erection of a gateway and hoarding, and the other over the cancellation of a sale deed without permission. The Court held that neither action interfered with the nature of the property or affected the respondent’s rights, adding, “In any event, we have held in favour of the Telangana State Wakf Board, and the respondent has no subsisting interest in the property.”
Outcome
Allowing the appeal, the Court set aside the High Court’s order and made the Trial Court’s injunction absolute. The contempt petitions were dismissed and pending applications were rejected.
Case Title: The A.P. State Wakf Board (Now Telangana State Wakf Board) v. Syed Masood Ahmed & Anr.
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 2804 of 2024 (with Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 842 and 635 of 2026)
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Date: October 26, 2026
