The Supreme Court has restored a permanent injunction in favour of the Telangana State Waqf Board over disputed land associated with a mosque, dargah and graveyard in Ranga Reddy district. A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran set aside the High Court's judgment that had dismissed the Waqf Board's suit. The Court also dismissed two contempt petitions filed in connection with the dispute.
Background
The dispute arose from land in Survey No. 89 at Hameedullah Nagar, Shamsabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy district, Telangana. The property was associated with the Qutub Shahi Mosque, the Dargah of Shah Amanullah Sahab, a graveyard and a well.
The Waqf Board had filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction to prevent interference with its possession of the land. The Trial Court granted the injunction after considering the Survey Commissioner's report and the Gazette notification identifying the property as Waqf land.
However, the High Court reversed that decision, citing the absence of an occupancy certificate under the Telangana Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, and the lack of supporting revenue records establishing the Board's possession.
The Waqf Board challenged the High Court's decision before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2804 of 2024.
Justice K. Vinod Chandran, who authored the judgment, examined the historical survey records, the Gazette notification dated February 9, 1989, and the documents relied upon by the parties.
The Court noted that the Survey Commissioner's report recorded the land's connection with the mosque, dargah and graveyard. The Gazette notification also identified the Waqf institution and listed the associated survey numbers.
The judgment observed:
“There is no challenge made to the said order by the vendors of the defendants.”
The Court further noted that the defendants claimed possession through an agreement for sale and a general power of attorney. Their vendors had not challenged the relevant survey findings, and the Court found no sufficient basis to accept the High Court's reasoning.
Addressing the statutory notification, the bench also considered the limitation period for challenging the published list of Waqf properties under the Waqf Act, 1954. It found that neither the vendors nor the defendants had raised a dispute within the applicable period.
The Court concluded:
“We do not think there is any cloud over the title of the suit scheduled property.”
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's judgment, making the Trial Court's injunction absolute.
The bench also dismissed Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 842 of 2026 and 635 of 2026, finding no sufficient reason to entertain the allegations concerning the status quo order passed on February 6, 2024.
Pending applications, if any, were rejected.
