‘Gazette alone cannot turn private land into Waqf’: Telangana HC quashes 2001 listing of 5.8 acres in Toopran

The Telangana High Court has quashed a 2001 Gazette notification as it covered the land of 39 petitioners in Toopran, Medak district, after the Waqf Board failed to produce records showing that the mandatory survey and enquiry had been conducted before the land was notified as Waqf property.

 

The court said a Gazette publication by itself cannot establish the Waqf character of private land when the statutory process preceding the notification has not been demonstrated. The ruling was delivered by Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty on September 15, 2026, in W.P. No. 35945 of 2025.

 

The case was filed by Syeda Ghousiya Sultana and 38 others, who challenged the inclusion of their properties in Gazette Notification No. 46-A dated December 20, 2001.

 

The properties covered several survey numbers in Toopran village, including 893, 894, 895, 896, 897, 432, 433 and 434, along with other sub-divisions. The petitioners maintained that the lands were private patta properties inherited through their families.

 

They produced Occupancy Rights Certificates issued in 1990, pattadar passbooks, title deeds and revenue records showing their names as pattadars, owners and possessors. The court noted that there was no claim before it that these records had been cancelled or declared invalid by a competent authority.

 

 

 

According to the petitioners, they became aware that their properties had been included in the Waqf list only when they approached registration authorities for executing sale deeds and found the properties on the prohibited list.

 

They argued that they had not received individual notices before the properties were notified and that no enquiry had been conducted in their presence or opportunity provided to them to raise objections.

 

The petitioners therefore challenged not merely the correctness of the Waqf entry but the legality of the process through which the land was brought into the Waqf list.

 

 

The Telangana State Waqf Board defended the notification, arguing that a survey of Waqf properties had been carried out in the 1960s.

 

It told the court that public announcements had allegedly been made through tom-tom or drum-beating during the survey process. The Board also questioned the delay in challenging the 2001 notification and argued that the petitioners had an alternative remedy before the Waqf Tribunal.

 

The Board further relied on subsequent changes to Waqf legislation, arguing that the procedural framework had changed over the years and that the later law should be taken into account.

 

 

The High Court found a crucial gap in the Waqf Board's case: the foundational records supporting the notification were not produced before the court.

 

The court specifically noted the absence of:

 

• The original survey report

• Proceedings of the Survey Commissioner

• Records relating to the enquiry

• Records of objections allegedly received

• Material showing that the affected landowners were given notice

• Records establishing the claimed public proclamation

• Other material demonstrating compliance with Sections 4 and 5 of the Waqf Act, 1954

 

The court said that merely stating in a counter-affidavit that the notification was issued according to law could not substitute for producing the statutory records demonstrating that the required procedure had actually been followed.

 

 

 

Justice Alishetty held that the survey and enquiry contemplated under Section 4 were the foundation for the subsequent publication of a Waqf list under Section 5.

 

The court relied on earlier Supreme Court decisions, including Madanuri Sri Ramachandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal, which recognised the survey as involving a substantive enquiry into whether a property was actually Waqf property.

 

The High Court said the process required authorities to examine the relevant material and apply their mind before a property could be included in the statutory list.

 

 

One of the key observations in the judgment was that publication in the Official Gazette is not, by itself, conclusive proof that a particular property is Waqf property when the statutory process leading to that publication has not been established.

 

The court described the Gazette notification as the culmination of the statutory process rather than a replacement for that process.

 

It further observed that once private property is included in a Waqf list, serious civil consequences follow for the affected owners. Therefore, the statutory authority must demonstrate compliance with the mandatory procedure before such consequences can be imposed.

 

The Waqf Board had also relied on subsequent legislative changes.

 

The High Court, however, held that the validity of the December 20, 2001 notification had to be examined under the statutory requirements applicable when that notification was issued. Subsequent amendments or later statutory mechanisms could not retrospectively cure non-compliance with mandatory requirements governing the original notification.

 

 

The High Court ultimately allowed the writ petition and set aside Gazette Notification as it related to the properties belonging to the petitioners.

 

The court also rejected the argument that the petitioners were necessarily required to approach the Waqf Tribunal, holding that the challenge concerned the legality of the procedure and alleged failure to comply with mandatory statutory requirements.

 

 

The judgment does not automatically invalidate the entire 2001 Gazette Notification No. 46-A.

 

The relief granted by the court concerns the properties of the 39 petitioners covered by their challenge. The judgment therefore does not, by itself, remove every property listed under the wider Toopran Gazette notification.

 

The ruling also comes against the backdrop of earlier litigation involving challenges to portions of the same 2001 Toopran Waqf Gazette.