Authorities must remove land from prohibited registers after the underlying Waqf notification is set aside.

The petitioners claimed rights over land measuring approximately Acs.32.26 guntas in Survey Nos.626, 638, 639 and 640 of Chantanapally Village, Farooqnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. They relied on revenue records, protected-tenancy proceedings, succession documents, and registered sale deeds executed in favour of some of the petitioners

The land had been included as Waqf property in A.P. Gazette No.36-A dated 04.09.2003, at Serial No.30908, and was consequently entered in the prohibitory register maintained by the registration authorities

In W.P. Nos.20293 of 2011 and 21889 of 2023, the High Court set aside the Gazette notification insofar as it related to the subject land and held that the land could not be treated as Waqf property

The Telangana State Waqf Board subsequently acknowledged that the Gazette notification had been set aside but stated that its Chief Executive Officer lacked jurisdiction to delete the land from the prohibitory register

Despite the petitioners’ representations, the revenue and registration authorities did not remove the entries. The petitioners therefore sought a writ of mandamus directing deletion of the subject land from the prohibitory records

1. Whether the continued inclusion of the subject land in the prohibitory register as Waqf property was legally sustainable after the Gazette notification constituting the basis for such inclusion had been set aside by the High Court.

2. Whether the registration and revenue authorities were legally obliged to make consequential corrections in their records in conformity with the binding judgments of the High Court.

3. Whether continued retention of the land in the prohibitory records unlawfully interfered with the petitioners’ constitutional right to property under Article 300-A of the Constitution.

The Court applied the principle that the law declared by a High Court binds all administrative authorities and tribunals subordinate to its jurisdiction, as stated in East India Commercial Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, AIR 1962 SC 1893.

It relied on the doctrine of mandamus under Article 226, under which the Court may compel public authorities to perform public duties and exercise statutory powers in accordance with law, drawing on 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.

The Court further applied Article 300-A, which prohibits deprivation of property except by authority of law, relying on Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDC, (2013) 1 SCC 353, and Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2020) 2 SCC 569.

The governing rule was that an administrative record cannot continue to give effect to a legal foundation that has been annulled by a binding judicial decision, and the competent authorities must correct consequential records accordingly.

The Court found that the sole legal basis for treating the subject land as Waqf property was the Gazette notification dated 04.09.2003, which had already been set aside in the earlier writ proceedings.

Consequently, the authorities could not continue to maintain the prohibitory entry on the strength of that invalidated notification.

The Waqf Board’s assertion that its Chief Executive Officer lacked power to delete the entry did not justify continuation of an unlawful consequence; the relief sought was directed to the competent record-maintaining authorities and concerned consequential correction, rather than an order requiring the Waqf Board to exercise a power it did not possess.

Continuing the entry would effectively perpetuate a legal position that had been annulled by the Court and would impede the petitioners’ ability to enjoy and deal with their property without any surviving statutory basis, thereby engaging Article 300-A.

The revenue authorities were therefore required to act consistently with the binding orders in the earlier writ petitions.

The respondents were directed to delete/remove the lands measuring 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, totalling Acs.32.26 guntas, from the prohibitory register and related records.

The competent authority was directed to complete the consequential corrections within four weeks from receipt of the order.

No order as to costs was made, and pending miscellaneous petitions were closed.