The Supreme Court has held that land classified as “service inam” inherently acquires the character of Wakf property and cannot be alienated through private transactions.
The bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Augustine George Masih has observed that the partition deed of 1945 itself described the land as “service inam”, granted for rendering services to a mosque, contradicting the plaintiffs’ claim of it being “personal inam.” Lands granted for religious or charitable purposes automatically acquire Wakf character, making them inalienable. Any subsequent partition or sale of such land is void ab initio and cannot confer valid title.
The dispute arose over land measuring Ac. 3.00 in Survey No. 914/B situated in Kallur Village, Kurnool District. The plaintiffs, Janaki Busappa and others, claimed ownership based on a partition deed dated 01.06.1945 and subsequent registered sale deeds executed in 1985 and 1996. They sought declaration of title and permanent injunction against interference by the Wakf Board.
Buy Now: E-Compilation of Supreme Court Judgements – March 2026
The controversy intensified when the Wakf Board allotted the land in 1999 to a religious body for construction of an Edgah, prompting the plaintiffs to challenge the action as illegal and without authority of law.
The Wakf Tribunal had dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs failed to establish valid title or lawful possession. It concluded that the land was “service inam” attached to a mosque and therefore constituted Wakf property, making subsequent transfers void.
However, the High Court reversed this finding, holding that the Wakf Board had failed to conclusively prove its title and that the plaintiffs had established possession and ownership through documentary evidence.
The Court relied on established precedents to reiterate that service inam lands are impressed with a religious trust and cannot be treated as private property.
The Court strongly reiterated that in a suit for declaration, the burden lies entirely on the plaintiff to prove title. A party cannot succeed based on weaknesses in the opponent’s case. The High Court erred in shifting the burden onto the Wakf Board, contrary to Sections 101–103 of the Evidence Act.
The Supreme Court placed significant reliance on admissions made by the plaintiffs’ witness, who acknowledged that the land was originally granted for mosque-related services. Such admissions, read with documentary evidence, were held to be decisive and wrongly ignored by the High Court.
The Court also noted that a Gazette Notification (1963) and survey records supported the Wakf nature of the property. Even though the original title deed was not produced, cumulative evidence sufficiently established the Wakf character.
While the plaintiffs argued possession based on cultivation, the Court clarified that mere physical possession does not confer legal rights in absence of valid title. Evidence such as existence of mosque-related structures further supported the Wakf Board’s claim.
Setting aside the High Court judgment, the Supreme Court restored the Tribunal’s decision and held that the suit property is Wakf land. The plaintiffs failed to establish any lawful title. Relief of declaration and injunction cannot be granted.
The appeal was accordingly allowed, with no order as to costs.
Case Details
Case Title: A.P. State Wakf Board Versus Janaki Busappa And Others
Citation: JURISHOUR-932-SC-2026
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO.1946 OF 2013
Date: 24/04/2026
