Telangana High Court Dismisses Wakf Board's Plea Claiming 5-Star Hotel Property

The Telangana High Court has delivered a significant judgment favoring Viceroy Hotels Limited in their protracted property dispute with the Telangana Wakf Board (the Board). The Court held that the principle of res judicata applies with full force to Wakf property disputes, preventing the Board from re-litigating a settled issue.

The dispute centered around a valuable property of almost 5 acres in the center of Hyderabad overlooking the Hussain Sagar Lake. The Waqf Board claimed the property to be of the Board, whereas Viceroy Hotels claimed that in 1958, after conducting an inquiry under section 27 of the Waqf Act 1954, the Board determined that the property was not a Wakf (religious endowment). Thus, the Viceroy Hotels came to acquire and develop the land, into the 'Marriott Hotel'.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti noted that unless the inquiry was set aside by a competent authority, the Board could not claim ownership of the land.

“Thus, it is evident that successive attempts had been made on behalf of the Wakf Board to claim the subject property as wakf property, despite determination of the question by the Wakf Board itself as long back as on 05.10.1958 itself under Section 27 of the 1954 Act that subject property is not a wakf property. Section 27(2) of the 1954 Act contains a mandate that decision of the Board under Section 27(1) of the Act is final unless it is revoked or modified by a civil court of competent jurisdiction. Admittedly, the resolution dated 05.10.1958 has neither been modified nor revoked by a civil court of competent jurisdiction. The aforesaid determination made under Section 27(1) of the 1954 Act, which has not been denied on behalf of the respondents, binds the Wakf Board.”

Background:

In 1958, the Waqf Board conducted an inquiry and conclusively held that a piece of land adjacent to the Hussain Sagar lake is not property of the Board. The land came to be developed by the petitioners herein into a 5 star Hotel.

However, in a series of subsequent actions, the Board repeatedly attempted to claim the property as Wakf. These attempts were consistently challenged by Viceroy Hotels, culminating in the Board issuing a notice in 2014 under the Wakf Act of 1995. This notice sought to evict Viceroy Hotels from the property, prompting them to file a writ petition challenging the Board's authority.

Viceroy Hotels argued that the 1958 determination conclusively established the status of the property as non-Wakf. The principle of res judicata, they asserted, prevented the Board from reopening the matter. Moreover, they challenged the validity of an addendum notification issued by the Board in 2007, which included the property in a list of Wakf properties. They argued that the significant delay and improper procedure rendered the notification invalid.

The Board maintained that it had the statutory authority to initiate proceedings under the 1995 Act, and the hotel chain could contest its claim before the Wakf Tribunal.

The Court's reasoning in upholding Viceroy Hotels' claims was that the principle of res judicata applies with full force to Wakf inquiries. Unless an inquiry conducted under section 27 of the Waqf Act was not set aside by the Civil Court, the Waqf Board did not have the authority to claim the property at a belated stage.

Thus, by issuing the impugned notice in 2014 under the 1995 Act, the Board, the Court noted was attempting to relitigate a matter already decided. The addendum notification purporting to include the property in the list of Wakf properties was also held not sustainable due to the inordinate delay of 24 years and the lack of adherence to proper procedure.

“It is well settled in law that when a statute does not provide for time limit for doing an act, such an act has to be done within a reasonable time and what would be the reasonable time has to be decided in the facts and circumstances of the act,” the bench held relying on Meher Rusi Dalal vs. Union of India, P.K.Sreekantan vs. P.Sreekumaran Nair and K.B.Nagur vs. Union of India.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the 2007 addendum notification by the Board as invalid and directed to Board not to proceed with any further eviction proceedings.

Case no.: WRIT PETITION Nos.8431 and 11730 of 2014

Counsel for petitioners: S.Niranjan Reddy, Senior Counsel for N.Naveen Kumar, and S.Nagesh Reddy, learned T.Bala Mohan Reddy

Counsel for respondent: Vedula Venkataramana, Senior Counsel for Abu Akram, Standing Counsel for Telangana State Wakf Board & A.M.Qureshi, Senior Counsel for M.A.K.Mukheed.

Click Here To Read/Download Order