An addendum to an invalid waqf notification cannot independently sustain the land’s waqf status.

The petitioners claimed ownership and possession of Acs.6.00 guntas in Sy.No.283 of Kongarakhurdu(A) Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, under registered sale deed No.13448/2006 dated 22 August 2006.

Their names were subsequently mutated in the revenue records, and pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued in their favour.

The Waqf authorities had earlier published AP Gazette No.6 dated 9 February 1989 under Section 52 of the Waqf Act, 1954, and later issued an addendum published on 8 February 2007, including the petitioners’ land as waqf property.

The petitioners contended that no survey or notice was undertaken before either notification.

The Waqf Board asserted that the statutory procedure had been followed and challenged the writ petition on the grounds of delay, laches, lack of locus standi, and availability of an alternative remedy before the Waqf Tribunal.

The petitioners relied upon B. Gowra Reddy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2002 AP 313, in which the 1989 notification had been set aside for non-compliance with the Waqf Act, 1954.

Whether the inclusion of the petitioners’ land in AP Gazette No.6 dated 9 February 1989, purportedly issued under Section 52 of the Waqf Act, 1954, was invalid for failure to conduct the requisite survey and provide notice or follow due process.

Whether the addendum published on 8 February 2007, including the petitioners’ land as waqf property, was legally sustainable despite the invalidity of the original 1989 notification and the absence of a specified statutory provision under which the addendum was issued.

Whether the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches, lack of locus standi, or availability of an alternative remedy before the Waqf Tribunal.

The Court applied Section 52 of the Waqf Act, 1954, governing the relevant statutory action concerning waqf property, and the procedural requirement that such action must comply with the applicable provisions of the Waqf legislation, including fair notice and due process.

It relied on B. Gowra Reddy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2002 AP 313, and the subsequent dismissal of W.A. No.745 of 2002, which established that the 9 February 1989 notification could be set aside where the statutory procedure under the Waqf Act, 1954 had not been followed.

The Court further applied the principle that an addendum dependent upon an invalid original notification cannot survive insofar as it relies upon that notification, particularly where the addendum does not identify the specific statutory provision or Act authorising its issuance.

The Court found that the petitioners had produced registered title documents, revenue records, pattadar passbooks, title deeds, and a survey report evidencing their possession and enjoyment of the land.

Although the Waqf Board asserted that a survey had been conducted and notices had been issued, it produced no supporting material.

Applying the reasoning in B. Gowra Reddy and the Court’s decision in W.P. No.35945 of 2025, the Court held that the 1989 notification could not be sustained because the statutory procedure had not been followed.

The 2007 addendum was independently defective because it did not specify the statutory authority under which it was issued; in any event, once the foundational 1989 notification was invalidated, the addendum could not legally continue insofar as it concerned the petitioners’ land.

The Court also noted that the Waqf Board had taken no steps since 2007 to evict the petitioners or recover possession, which supported the petitioners’ factual claim of continued possession.

AP Gazette No.6 dated 9 February 1989, issued under Section 52 of the Waqf Act, 1954, and the addendum published on 8 February 2007 were set aside insofar as they related to the petitioners’ Acs.6.00 guntas in Sy.No.283 of Kongarakhurdu(A) Village.

The Court directed that the reasons and directions contained in its order dated 15 September 2026 in W.P. No.35945 of 2025 would form part of the present order.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, were closed, with no order as to costs.