- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
U.P Sunni Central Wa... v. State Of U.P Through...
Structured Summary of the Opinion
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner (Sunni Central Waqf Board) challenged an order dated 29.4.2003 of the Vth Additional District Judge, Shahjahanpur that rejected an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Misc. Application No. 5 of 2002). The application sought recall of a judgment dated 16.5.2000 passed by the Additional District Judge, Shahjahanpur in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 61 of 1992 (Harsh Dev Gupta v. U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board).
The underlying dispute began when respondent No. 3 (Harsh Dev Gupta) filed Civil Misc. Appeal No. 61 of 1992 against a notice/order dated 23.6.1992 issued by the Controller of the U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board directing the Collector, Shahjahanpur, to evict respondent No. 3 from the land in dispute. The respondent contested that the land (plots 1625A to 1628A measuring 3 acres 36 bigha as described in the record) was Waqf property, asserting that his predecessors (including Smt. Munni and her husband Wasi) were sirdars and that Wasi's heirs had deposited ten times and obtained bhumidhari rights; subsequently the land was sold and the respondent acquired title by registered sale deed.
The Additional District Judge allowed the appeal on 16.5.2000, apparently after the petitioner's counsel did not appear on the hearing date. The Waqf Board then filed Misc. Application No. 5 of 2002 under Section 151 CPC (and an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act) seeking recall on grounds including alleged misrepresentation/fraud and lack of jurisdiction because of statutory changes made by the Waqf Act, 1995.
The Vth Additional District Judge rejected the recall application. The High Court then heard the writ petition challenging that decision; both sides were represented and arguments were recorded before the High Court, which considered statutory interpretation (the interplay of U.P. Muslim Waqf Act, 1960 and the Waqf Act, 1995), jurisdictional contentions under Sections 49B/57A, factual ownership (registered sale deed), and whether the earlier decision was tainted by fraud or misrepresentation.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the judgment dated 16.5.2000 in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 61 of 1992 could be recalled under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure on grounds of fraud or misrepresentation.
- Whether the Additional District Judge had jurisdiction to entertain and decide Appeal No. 61 of 1992 (filed in 1992) — specifically, whether appeals under Section 49B (as read with Section 57A) lie before the District Judge and thereby whether the impugned appeal decision was intra vires.
- Whether the Waqf Act, 1995 (and Section 112 in particular) had the effect of rendering appeals filed under the earlier U.P. Muslim Waqf Act, 1960 (or procedures existing then) non‑maintainable — i.e., whether the 1995 Act retroactively ousted jurisdiction in respect of appeals pending or filed under the earlier law.
- Whether the provisions of the U.P. Muslim Waqf Act, 1960 applied to a non‑Muslim respondent who claimed title by registered sale deed (and relatedly, whether registration/entry in Waqf registers is conclusive against non‑Muslims).
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- The recall application under Section 151 CPC and Section 5 Limitation Act sought to set aside the judgment of 16.5.2000 on grounds of fraud/misrepresentation by Harsh Dev Gupta in filing the appeal and obtaining the decision.
- Under Section 49B(5) of the U.P. Muslim Waqf Act, 1960, an appeal against a notice issued by the Collector was to be filed before the District Judge within thirty days; the petitioners contended that the District Judge in Shahjahanpur did not have jurisdiction to decide as pleaded and that the appeal had been mischaracterized to obtain a decision.
- After commencement of the Waqf Act, 1995 the earlier U.P. Sunni Waqf Act, 1960 was said to be repealed; under the new Act appeals/claims were to be before a Tribunal (per Section 52(4) corresponding to 49B(4)) and suits under Section 54(4) were to be instituted in a Tribunal. Thus, the appeal decided after the commencement of the 1995 Act was alleged to be without jurisdiction.
Respondent's Arguments
- The appeal (filed in 1992) attacked the requisition notice issued by the Collector in pursuance of the Controller's order, and therefore was properly maintainable under Section 49B(4) read with Section 57A, which provide appeal to the District Judge against requisition orders/notices issued by the Collector.
- The appeal was filed in 1992, i.e., prior to commencement of the Waqf Act, 1995; consequently the Additional District Judge had jurisdiction to decide it.
- The judgment in appeal was not obtained by fraud or misrepresentation and was correctly decided on merits; respondent relied on the registered sale deed and asserted ownership. Counsel relied on Chedda Singh & Ors. v. Additional Civil Judge, Moradabad and Ors. (1996 Supp AWC 189) to support the proposition that mere entry in the Waqf register is not enough to establish Board's title against a non‑Muslim owner.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Chedda Singh and Ors. v. Additional Civil Judge, Moradabad and Ors. (1996 Supp AWC 189) | Supports the position that the identification/registration of property as Waqf is not binding on a non‑Muslim; mere mention in Waqf register is not sufficient to establish ownership against non‑Muslims. | The Court referred to and relied on this decision to support its conclusion that the U.P. Muslim Waqf Act, 1960 does not apply to the non‑Muslim respondent and that the Board had not adduced documents to prove ownership beyond entries in the register. |
| Board of Muslim Waqfs, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan (Supreme Court) | Holds that identification/registration under the Waqfs Act (1954) is not binding on non‑Muslims and that the Legislature could not have intended to put in jeopardy the rights, title and interest of persons who are not Muslims by mere inclusion in the list published under the Act. | The Court quoted and relied upon the reasoning to reinforce that registration/entry in the Waqf register does not automatically defeat the title of non‑Muslim owners in possession. |
| Afzal Husain v. Ist Additional District Judge | Discussed and applied the Supreme Court's reasoning in Board of Muslim Waqfs, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan and observed that registration is binding on Muslims but not on non‑Muslims (illustrated by a Shia Muslim petitioner being debarred from challenging a registered waqf title). | The Court used this authority to distinguish between the position of Muslim and non‑Muslim claimants, supporting the conclusion that a non‑Muslim who claims ownership by sale deed cannot be overborne solely by an entry in the Waqf register. |
| Gammon India Ltd. v. Special Chief Secretary and Ors. | Where a repeal is simultaneous with a re‑enactment and the new Act contains a saving clause, the earlier provisions (rights and liabilities accrued under the repealed Act) continue to operate; re‑enactment functions as reaffirmation unless the new enactment manifests incompatible intention. | The Court relied on this principle to hold that Section 112 of the Waqf Act, 1995 (a saving clause) preserves the operation of earlier provisions and actions taken under the U.P. Muslim Waqf Act, 1960, so that proceedings and appeals under the earlier law remain valid. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court's analysis proceeded in several discrete steps, confined to the record and authorities cited in the opinion:
- Factual finding on title and applicability: The Court noted the undisputed fact that respondent No. 3 had become owner by a registered sale deed and reiterated the legal principle (drawn from precedent) that the provisions of the U.P. Muslim Waqf Act, 1960 are not applicable to non‑Muslims. The Court relied on the line of authority that registration/entry in a Waqf register is not conclusive against a non‑Muslim in possession unless corroborated by other documentary proof.
- Jurisdictional challenge to the appeal: The Court examined the nature of the appeal filed in 1992 and concluded that the appeal challenged the requisition notice issued by the Collector in pursuance of the Controller's order. Under Sections 49B(4) and 57A (as existing at the relevant time), such appeals lie before the District Judge. The Court observed that the District Judge could, in turn, hear or transfer the appeal to an Additional District Judge; accordingly the contention that the court lacked jurisdiction was rejected.
- Allegation of fraud/misrepresentation and adequacy of remedy under Section 151 CPC: The Court accepted the view of the court below that the impugned order was decided on merits and was not shown to have been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. The Court considered that an application under Section 151 CPC was not an appropriate vehicle to overturn an appeal decision that was decided on merits in the absence of clear fraud.
- Effect of the Waqf Act, 1995 and Section 112 saving provision: The Court analysed Section 112 of the Waqf Act, 1995, including its saving provisions, and followed the reasoning in Gammon India (and the underlying principles of simultaneous repeal and re‑enactment). It concluded that the 1995 Act's saving clause preserved earlier actions and proceedings taken under the corresponding provisions of the prior law; hence the appeal filed in 1992 could not be treated as rendered non‑maintainable retroactively by the 1995 Act.
- Burden and sufficiency of evidence: The Court observed that mere mention of property in a torn page of the Board's register did not, without supporting documents, establish the Board's ownership. The record showed no adequate documentary proof of the Board's title; the lower court's finding that the Board had not proved ownership was accepted.
- Relief sought under Article 226: In view of the foregoing analysis (lack of fraud/misrepresentation, proper jurisdiction to hear the appeal, the saving of earlier law by Section 112 of the 1995 Act, and absence of proof of Board's ownership), the Court declined to exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The High Court dismissed the writ petition. The precise operative outcome is: WRIT PETITION DISMISSED.
Implications:
- The judgment dated 16.5.2000 in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 61 of 1992 (Harsh Dev Gupta v. U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board) stands and is not recalled pursuant to the application under Section 151 CPC; the Vth Additional District Judge's refusal to recall that judgment was upheld.
- The Court confirmed that appeals filed against Collector's requisition notices under the statutory provisions in force at the time (Sections 49B(4) and 57A) were properly before the District Judge, and that the District Judge's power to hear or transfer such appeals validated the proceedings in 1992.
- On the effect of the Waqf Act, 1995, the Court held that Section 112 (saving clause) preserves actions and proceedings under the earlier corresponding law; therefore, the 1995 Act did not retroactively invalidate the appeal decided in 2000 which arose from a 1992 filing.
- The decision directly affects the parties by upholding the appeal judgment in favor of the respondent and dismissing the Waqf Board's challenge; the opinion did not announce a new legal principle beyond its application of existing precedents and statutory interpretation to the facts, i.e., it did not purport to lay down novel precedent beyond applying settled authorities.
End of summary — prepared strictly from the contents of the provided opinion. No information beyond the opinion text has been added.
1. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.4.2003, passed by the Vth Additional District Judge, Shahjahanpur in Misc. Case No. 5 of 2002, Sunni Central Waqf Board v. Harsh Dev Gupta rejecting the application under Section 151 of C.P.C. filed by Sunni Central Waqf Board for recalling the order dated 16.5.2000, passed by the Additional District Judge, Shahjahanpur in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 61 of 1992, Harsh Dev Gupta v. Sunni Central Waqf Board, Lucknow.
2. The brief facts of the case giving rise to the present petition are that the respondent No. 3 filed a Civil Misc. Appeal No. 61 of 1992 against the order/notice dated 23.6.1992, issued by the Controller, U. P. Sunni Central Waqf Board, Lucknow, directing the Collector, Shahjahanpur to evict the respondent No. 3 from the land in dispute and in pursuance thereof, notice issued by the Collector. The appeal was filed on the ground that the land in dispute Nos. 1625A to 1268A measuring 3 acre 36 dismal, which is situated within the Municipal area of Shahjahanpur was not the property of Sunni Central Waqf Board, Lucknow. It is stated that Smt. Munni and her husband Wasi were the sirdar and after the death of Wasi, their heirs on the deposit of ten times became bhumidhari. Thereafter, they have sold the land in dispute vide sale deed which was registered and in this way, they have become the owner of the land in dispute. It was submitted that merely because the said property was mentioned in torn page of a register of Sunni Central Waqf Board, it cannot be said to be the property of Sunni Central Waqf Board, Lucknow. It was submitted that the Controller, Sunni Central Waqf Board, Lucknow, has illegally initiated an ex parte proceeding against them for their eviction from the property in dispute while they were not the owners of such property.
3. The Additional District Judge, Shahjahanpur vide order dated 16.5.2000, allowed the Appeal No. 61 of 1992. It appears that the appeal had been decided without hearing the petitioner on the ground that on the date fixed, counsel for the petitioner could not appear. It appears that before the Additional District Judge, Shahjahanpur two Appeals Nos. 60 of 1992, Shyam Prakash and Anr. v. U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board, Lucknow and 61 of 1992, Harsh Dev Gupta v, U. P. Sunni Central Waqf Board, Lucknow were filed. In the present petition, we are only concerned with Appeal No. 61 of 1992, Harsh Dev Gupta v. U. P. Sunni Central Waqf Board, Lucknow.
4. The Additional District Judge, Shahjahanpur held that the revenue record was produced, in which, khatauni 1378-/fasli to 1380-/fasli, Wasi son of Maikoo name was mentioned as sirdar. In 1370 fasli 1625A and 1628A, his name was shown as sirdar. No record has been produced to show that the land in dispute belong to Sunni Central Waqf Board. It has been held that after the death of Wasi, his son Itwari, Ram Bharosay and Om Prakash have deposited ten times and obtained right of bhumfdhart. It is also observed that in respect of the said property, Sri Ali Husain and another filed a suit for eviction of Smt. Munni and Wasi. The said suit was decreed, but in Appeal No. 71 of 1968, the Additional Commissioner, allowed the appeal vide order dated 17.8.1970 and Smt. Munni and Wasi were found in possession of the land in dispute. It has been held that the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 17.8.1970 had become final, in which, land in dispute was found in possession of Smt. Munni and Wasi and it has not been accepted that the land in dispute was the property of Waqf. It has been further held that U. P. Muslim Waqf Act, 1960 was not applicable to the non-Muslim. It has been held that since in the order/notice dated 23.6.1992, issued by the Controller, order of the Additional Commissioner has not been considered, hence, the order dated 23.6.1992 is illegal and is liable to be set aside.
5. The petitioner thereafter, moved a Misc. Application No. 5 of 2002 under Section 151 of C.P.C. alongwith an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for recalling the judgment passed in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 61 of 1992, Harsh Dev Gupta v. U. P. Sunni Central Waqf Board, Lucknow, mainly on the ground that under Section 49B (5) of the U. P. Muslim Waqf Act, 1960, against the notice issued under Section 49B (2), by the Collector an appeal could be filed before the District Judge having jurisdiction within thirty days, but Harsh Dev Gupta had filed an appeal against the order of the Waqf Board and by misrepresentation, got the appeal No. 61 of 1992 decided. The District Judge, Shahjahanpur had only jurisdiction to decide the said appeal, thus, the order passed as a result of misrepresentation and fraud, should be recalled. Secondly that by Section 112(3) of the Waqf Act, 1995, if there was any law of similar nature in existence in a State, the same shall be deemed to be repealed and it amounts that the U. P. Muslim Waqf Act was not enforceable and hence, the appeal filed against the order under Section 49B of U. P. Muslim Waqf Act, 1960 was not maintainable and thus, the order dated 26.5.2000 was without jurisdiction.
6. The Vth Additional District Judge, Shahjahanpur held that the Appeal No. 61 of 1992, Harsh Dev Gupta v. U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board, Lucknow, was filed against the requisition notice sent by Collector issued in pursuance of the order dated 23.6.1992 issued by U. P. Muslim Waqf Board, Lucknow. In appeal, requisition notice issued by the Collector was challenged which was issued in pursuance of notice/order of U. P. Sunni Central Waqf Board, received by Sri Harsh Dev Gupta on 15.12.1992. The appeal was filed on 22.12.1992 under Section 57A read with Section 49B (4) of the Act. Under Sections 49B (4) and 57A, an appeal lies before the District Judge against the requisition order/notice issued by the Collector. It has been held that from perusal of memo of appeal filed against the notice issued by the Collector under Section 49B (5), it is wrong to say that the appeal was filed against the requisition issued by the Collector but had been filed against the order of U. P. Sunni Central Waqf Board. Under Section 49B, the District Judge either himself could hear the appeal or transfer to any other Court of Additional District Judge. Thus, the allegation that the Court had no jurisdiction to decide the appeal, is not correct. It has been further held that the appeal was decided on merit and Sri Harsh Dev Gupta being non-Muslim, the provisions of Muslim Waqf Act was not applicable and hence, the order dated 16.5.2000, passed in Appeal No. 61 of 1992 was neither an order, without jurisdiction nor had been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation and there is no illegality in the order. It has been further held that under Section 112(3) of the Waqf Act, 1995, it did not make any effect of the operation of previous law and hence, the appeal filed in 1992, cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. The Court has further held that the order was passed without hearing the Waqf Board, cannot be considered on an application under Section 151 of C.P.C., inasmuch as, the appeal had been decided on merit.
7. Heard Sri M. A. Qadeer, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Narendra Mohan, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3.
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Section 49B (4) read with Section 57A of the Act, appeal was maintainable only against the notice/requisition issued by the Collector and no appeal was maintainable against the order of the Controller, U. P. Sunni Central Waqf Board, Lucknow, while the Additional District Judge, Shahjahanpur vide its order dated 16.5.2000 set aside the order of the Controller, U. P. Sunni Central Waqf Board, Lucknow and also set aside the requisition notice issued by the Collector. He submitted that after the commencement of the Waqf Act, 1995, in view of Section 112, of 1995 of U. P. Sunni Waqf Act, 1960, which is corresponding to the Waqf Act, 1995, has been repealed and under Section 52 (4) which is corresponding to Section 49B (4), appeal lies to the Tribunal within the jurisdiction where the property is situated and under Section 54 (4) against the order of Chief Executive Officer, suit can be instituted in a Tribunal, therefore, appeal decided by the Additional District Judge after the commencement of Waqf Act, 1995 was without jurisdiction and was liable to be quashed. Sri Narendra Mohan, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 submitted that the appeal was filed against the requisition notice issued by the Collector which was issued in pursuance of the order passed by the Controller, therefore, both the requisition notice as well as the orders were challenged which have been set aside. Thus, it is wrong to say that the appeal was not maintainable. He further submitted that the Controller of Board had passed the order on 23.6.1992 and requisition notice was also issued in 1992, inasmuch as, the appeal was filed in 1992 prior to commencement of Waqf Act, 1995, thus, the Additional District Judge had a Jurisdiction to decide the appeal filed in the year 1992. He submitted that the order in appeal had not been obtained by any fraud or misrepresentation and it has been rightly held so. He further submitted that the respondent No. 3 is the owner of the property by virtue of sale deed and being non-Muslim, Waqf Act is not applicable upon him, thus, the order passed by the Controller and the requisition/notice was patently without jurisdiction. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Chedda Singh and Ors. v. Additional Civil Judge, Moradabad and Ors. 1996 Supp AWC 189. He submitted that merely because property in dispute was mentioned in the register of Board is not sufficient to establish right and title of Board. He submitted that no evidence had been adduced to prove that the property in dispute belonged to the Board. He submitted that the Additional Commissioner in its order dated 17.8.1970 in Appeal No. 71 of 1968 filed by Smt. Munni and Wasi against Ali Hussain and others, held that the property is in possession of Smt. Munni and Wasi. In that case, suit was filed by one Ali Husain on the ground that the property was the waqf property and Smt. Munni and Wasi may be dispossessed. The said suit was decreed, but subsequently, order in suit was set aside in Appeal No. 71 of 1968 which had become final. Thus, on the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court may not interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
9. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders and record. There is no dispute that the respondent No. 3 by virtue of sale deed became the owner of the property in dispute. The respondent No. 3 being non-Muslim, the provisions of U. P. Muslim Waqf Act, 1960 was not applicable as held by this Court in the case of Chedda Singh and Ors. v. Additional Civil Judge, Moradabad and Ors.
10. On consideration of decisions of Apex Court, this Court held as follows:
I hold that the provisions of the waqfs act was not applicable to the petitioners, who are admittedly Hindus, who were claiming right, title and interest in the suit properties and accordingly, Section 57A of the Act was illegally invoked, proceedings were illegally commenced and the orders passed therein on all are without jurisdiction and void and not binding upon the petitioners.
11. The Rajasthan High Court, after considering different provisions of the waqfs act, 1954, the judgment of which was under challenge in appeal before the Supreme Court in the case of Board of Muslim Waqfs Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan , relied upon by Mr. Verma had observed as follows:
The very object of the Waqfs Act is to be provide for better administration and supervision of Waqfs and the Board had been given powers of superintendence over all waqfs which vest in the board. This provision seems to have been made in order to avoid prolongation of triangular disputes between the Waqfs Board, the mutwalli and a person interested in the waqf who would be a person of the same community. It could never have been the intention of the Legislature to cast a cloud on the right, title or interest of persons who are not Muslims. That is, if a person who is non-Muslim whether he be a Christian, a Hindu, a Sikh, a Parsi or of any other religious denominations and if he is in possession of a certain property, his right, title and interest cannot be put in jeopardy simply because that property is included in the list published under sub-section (2) of section 5.
12. In Afzal Husain v. Ist Additional District Judge , relied upon by the petitioners, this Court noticed the aforementioned judgment of the Supreme Court and observed as follows:
In the Board of Muslim Waqfs, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan , their Lordships of the Supreme Court were dealing with the effect of registration under the Waqfs Act of 1954 which had been extended to the State of Rajasthan. Under that Act also, the procedure for identification and registration of waqfs was very much similar to the procedure prescribed under the U. P. Muslim Waqfs Act of 1960. In this case, title was claimed by a Hindu to a property which had been identified and registered as wakf property. Their Lordships held that the said identification and registration was not binding on a non-Muslim but so far as Muslims were concerned the said identification and registration was final and binding. In the present case, the petitioner is also a Muslim and that too a Shia Muslim and he is, therefore, debarred from challenging the title of the waqf to the property in dispute in view of the registration under Section 29 and entry of the property in the register of waqfs maintained under Section 30 of the Act.
13. In the present case, the court below has categorically held that the order had not been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. It has further held that the appeal was maintainable, thus, it was not without jurisdiction. I do not find any error in the view taken by the court below. Merely because, the property is mentioned in the register maintained by the Registrar of Board, is not sufficient for claim of ownership and possession. Apart from the entry in the register, some other documents was to be adduced to ratify the claim. In the present case, no documents have been adduced by the Board to prove the ownership as held by the court below which had not been disputed.
14. The argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner that since U. P. Sunni Waqf Act. 1960, has been repealed and under the new act under section 52 (4) appeal was provided before the Tribunal and under Section 54 (4) of the Act against the order of the Chief Executive Officer, suit could be filed and thus, appeal decided by the Additional District Judge after the commencement of Waqf Act, 1995, was without jurisdiction, has no force.
15. In the instant cases, there was a simultaneous repeal and the re-enactment of the Act and Waqf Act, 1995, clearly saves the earlier provisions in toto. Section 112 of the Waqf Act, 1995 reads as follows:
112. Repeal and savings.- (1) The Waqf Act, 1954 (29 of 1954) and the Waqf Amendment Act, 1984 (69 of 1984) are hereby repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken under the said Acts shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this Act.
(3) If, Immediately before the commencement of this Act, in any State, there is in force in that State, any law which corresponds to this Act, that corresponding law shall stand repealed:
Provided that such appeal shall not affect the previous operation of that corresponding law, and subject thereto, anything done or any action taken in the exercise of any power conferred by or under the corresponding law shall be deemed to have been done or taken in the exercise of the powers conferred by or under this Act as if this Act was in force on the day on which such things were done or action was taken.
16. A similar situation arose before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gammon India Ltd. v. Special Chief Secretary and Ors. .
17. In that case, Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, was repealed by Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005. However. Section 80 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, clearly saves the earlier provisions. Saving clause was identical to Section 112 of Waqf Act, 1995. Apex Court held as follows:
In the instant case, there is a simultaneous repeal and the re-enactment and the A. P. V.A.T. Act clearly saves the earlier provisions in toto. Consequently, rights and liabilities accrued or incurred under the A. P. G.S.T, Act shall continue even after it is repealed.
On critical analysis and ' scrutiny of all relevant cases and opinions of learned authors, the conclusion becomes inescapable that whenever there is a repeal of an enactment and simultaneous re-enactment, the re-enactment is to be considered as reaffirmation of the old law and provisions of the repealed act which are thus re-enacted continue in force uninterruptedly unless the re-enacted enactment manifests an intention incompatible with or contrary to the provisions of the repealed act. Such incompatibility will have to be ascertained from a consideration of the relevant provisions of the re-enacted enactment and the mere absence of the saving clause is, by itself, not material for consideration of all the relevant provisions of the new enactment. In other words, a clear legislative intention of there-enacted enactment has to be inferred and gathered whether it intended to preserve all the rights and liabilities of a repealed statute intact or modify or to obliterate them altogether.
On the touchstone of the principles of law culled out from the judgments of various courts applied to the facts of these cases lead to a definite conclusion that the Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), Warangal Division was fully Justified in initiating and completing the proceedings under the A. P. G.S.T. Act even after it Is repealed.
18. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances and reasons stated above, I decline to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
19. In the result, writ petition fails, and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Alert