Supreme Court Restores Wakf Board's Injunction Over Mafi Inam Lands Near Qutub Shahi Mosque

The Supreme Court of India has set aside a High Court judgment that had dismissed the Telangana State Wakf Board's suit for permanent injunction concerning Mafi Inam lands associated with the Qutub Shahi Mosque, the Dargah of Shah Amanullah Sahab and a graveyard in Ranga Reddy district, Telangana. In The A.P. State Wakf Board v. Syed Masood Ahmed & Anr., the Court restored the Trial Court's injunction, relying on the historical survey findings and the Gazette notification identifying the religious institution and its associated lands as Wakf property. The Court also examined the principles governing injunction suits, disputes over title, and the limitation period for challenging the published list of Wakf properties.

Background of the Case

The Telangana State Wakf Board was managing the Qutub Shahi Mosque, along with the Dargah of Shah Amanullah Sahab, a graveyard and a well situated in Survey No. 89, Hameedullah Nagar, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy district.

The dispute concerned 16 acres and 5 guntas of land claimed by the defendants. The judgment refers to the larger extent of land associated with the Wakf institution and records different measurements in the historical survey material and related documents.

The Board filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with its possession of the disputed land. The Trial Court accepted the Board's case and granted the injunction.

The High Court, however, reversed the decision and dismissed the suit. It reasoned that, in the absence of an occupancy certificate under the Telangana Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, or supporting pahanis and revenue records in the Board's favour, the Wakf character of the disputed property and the Board's possession had not been established.

Relying on Balkrishna Dattatraya Galande v. Balkrishna Rambharose Gupta, (2020) 19 SCC 119, the High Court emphasised that an injunction protecting possession could not be granted without proof of possession. It also referred to the gap of approximately 20 years between the Survey Commissioner's report and the Gazette notification, as well as the pattadar passbooks held by the defendants through their vendors.

The High Court further observed that the expression “Mafi Inam” in the revenue records did not, by itself, establish that the land was a service grant made for the maintenance of a Wakf institution.

Legal Principles Governing Injunction Suits

Before the Supreme Court, the respondents relied on Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy, (2008) 4 SCC 594, which explains when a suit for injunction alone is sufficient and when a declaration of title or recovery of possession may also be necessary.

The Court recalled the following principles:

1. Where the plaintiff is in lawful possession and faces interference or a threat of dispossession, a suit for injunction simpliciter may be sufficient.
2. Where a genuine cloud is raised over the plaintiff's title, a declaration of title may be necessary.
3. Where the plaintiff is out of possession, a suit for possession, with consequential relief where appropriate, may be required.

The Court also referred to paragraph 14 of Anathula Sudhakar, which explains that a cloud over title arises when an apparent defect in the plaintiff's title or a prima facie right of a third party is shown.

The Bench distinguished the earlier decisions on their facts. In Anathula Sudhakar, both parties claimed rights over the same property through competing sale deeds, and the plaintiffs had taken inconsistent positions concerning how their vendor had acquired title. The dispute therefore required examination through a title suit.

In Balkrishna Dattatraya Galande, the question concerned whether the plaintiff was actually in possession of premises that he claimed to occupy as a tenant. The evidence did not support his claim that the premises were being used for the businesses he described.

The Supreme Court held that neither the kind of cloud over title discussed in Anathula Sudhakar nor the dispute over actual possession involved in Galande arose in the same manner in the present case.

Historical Survey Records and Gazette Notification

The Supreme Court examined the evidence relied upon by the Trial Court, including the Survey Commissioner's report and the Gazette notification.

The certified copy of the Survey Commissioner's report, marked Exhibit A1, recorded the existence of the mosque, Dargah, graveyard and well within an extent described as one acre and six guntas. Exhibit A2, the Gazette notification, identified the religious institution as Wakf property.

The judgment also referred to the defendants' own revenue records from 1956–57 to 1958–59, which described the land as Mafi Inam. The Trial Court treated this description as indicating a service grant connected with the maintenance of the Wakf institution, a finding considered alongside the other historical evidence.

The Supreme Court noted that the persons whose names appeared in the defendants' pattadar passbooks were their vendors. Apart from the recitals in the agreement of sale, the evidence did not establish the defendants' possession, and the vendors' title to sell the disputed land had not been established.

The Court further considered the Survey Commissioner's report of 1968, which recorded that an objection raised by the grandson of a person whose name appeared in the revenue records had been considered and rejected. The report indicated that the land had been entrusted for the continuation of services to the mosque and Dargah and for the performance of religious rites.

The report identified the mosque, Dargah, graveyard, and associated inam lands in Survey Nos. 57, 59, 60, 81, 87, 88, 89 and 121 as Wakf land, measuring 42 acres and 3 guntas. The judgment also referred elsewhere to an extent of 37 acres and 25 guntas associated with the institution. These figures appear in different parts of the historical record discussed by the Court.

The Court noted that the vendors had not challenged the relevant survey finding and that their alleged possession rested on an agreement of sale and a general power of attorney.

The Bench also reproduced the Gazette notification dated 9 February 1989, issued under the Wakf Act, 1954. Serial No. 3108 identified the Qutub Shahi Mosque in Survey No. 89, together with the Dargah of Shah Amanullah Sahab and the graveyard. The stated objects of the Wakf included prayer, burial and Fateha.

On examining this material, the Supreme Court found no cloud over the title to the suit property and concluded that the High Court's decision could not be sustained.

Limitation for Challenging the Wakf Notification

Another significant aspect of the judgment concerned the limitation period for challenging the inclusion of property in the published list of Wakfs.

The Court referred to Sections 4, 5(2) and 6 of the Wakf Act, 1954, which governed the survey and publication of Wakf properties and disputes concerning their inclusion in the published list.

The judgment explained that the applicable limitation period for raising such a dispute was one year from publication of the list under Section 5(2), with the period having been judicially interpreted by reference to the date of knowledge.

In the present case, neither the defendants nor their vendors had challenged the relevant notification within the prescribed period. They had also not pleaded that they had first acquired knowledge of the notification at a later date.

The absence of a timely challenge was therefore an important consideration in the Court's conclusion that there was no cloud over the title to the disputed property.

Supreme Court's Decision

The Supreme Court found no justification for upholding the High Court's judgment and set it aside. The Court allowed the appeal and restored the permanent injunction granted by the Trial Court, making it absolute.

The decision protected the Wakf Board against interference with its possession of the disputed land, based on the evidence and legal circumstances the Court considered.

Read the full judgment here: https://www.sci.gov.in/view-pdf/?diary_no=311712022&type=j&order_date=2026-10-26&from=latest_judgements_order