High Court Karnataka High Court

Chikkahanumaiah vs The Secretary Karnataka Wakf … on 1 December, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Chikkahanumaiah vs The Secretary Karnataka Wakf … on 1 December, 2008
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
2

R / O BELIGUMBA VILLAGE
KASABA I-IOBLI
RAMANAGARAM TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DIST

ABDUL JABBAR KHAN
S /O LATE USMAN KHAN
MAJOR, D.NO.2156, III WARD
NEAR JNATHA NURSING HOME"
DODDABALLAPUR TOWN 
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT '

{By Sri : P' V PATIL, T VENUGOPAL; ) 2 '

AND :

THE SECRETARY    1 T,
KARNATAI<;A"wA'1<FBOART)  " 
CUNNIN_GHAM';_RQAvD_' _   

 .,:,: :;,. ,

THEBEPUVTY'GOMMIASSTONER
BANGALORE RURAL' DISTRICT
VISHWESHWARAIAH TOWERS
VIDHAN VEEDHI, BANGALORE 1

A  OE KARNATAKA
* -BY I,TS.%S:EGRETARY FOR REVENUE

  ,MULT1S'TOREyEB BUILDING
- A "BANGALORE 1

R4

;f"I~IE"~-GECRRETARY
ANJUMAN HAMIYATI-IULLA ISLAM

" r ARAMANAGARAM
g _B'ANGALORE RURAL DIST

 MOHAMED IBRAHEM KHAN

S/ O LATE USMAN KHAN

AGE ABOUT 70 YEARS
PALANAJOGIHALLI, KASABA I-IOBLI
DODDABALLAPUR TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DIST. J

'\

iJ\

. PET*I'T1jONER1S '



6 ABDUL RAHIM KHAN
S / O LATE USMAN KHAN
REP.BY GPA HOLDER
SRLFARUQUE KHAN
MUTHURU III WARD, VI DIVISION
DODDABALLAPUR TOWN
BANGALORE RURAL DIST

(By SMT: S R ANURADHA, ADV FORR1 E f) ., 

 RESPo_1$IDEAiT'S  A'

(BY SMT . SAROJINI K MUTHANNA, AGA FDR; R2.&[RS)'    7

(BY SR1. A G SHIVANNA 85 M S ASWATHAREDDY,'  - . «.
ADV FOR R4)    '   
(BY SR1. B RUDRAGOWDA, ADV 'FORR5 &*R6)--.._ 

THIS WRIT PETITIONIS 1«"1LEDIU~NDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227' OF THE CONSTITEJTI-'QN,Q}«"..,_I~ND1A PRAYING To
QUASH VIDE ANNE DATED 6.'1o,2.'ooo PASSED BY R2 AND
DIRECT R2 TO TAKE U_P__'*THE._E1LE~S -"CASE AND
ENTERTAIN THE; 'RENDING*~APRLTQATIDNS OF THE
PETITIONERS U:'\rDER'TH:E INAMS" .ABCaLITiON LAWS AND

PASS AP1§RoPRI'ATE_a(§?RI3ERs,_ _ -- 

THIS l5E{i'ITTOViN_ CDMLNG ON FOR HEARING THIS

DAY TRE coUR'3i 'MADE THE FOLLOWING:

 ._  1 to 5 filed applications in form

 No.7'O"t1ncl.er'§ec.48~A of the Karnataka Land Reforms

  D. for grant of occupancy rights in respect of

igcertlaizij agricultural lands of which they claim to be

"-(tenants, While petitioner No.6 and the 1st respondent

.4 Wakf Board filed applications in form No.1, under the

A A
‘fj

Mysore Religious and Charitable Inarns Abolition Act,
1955, for short “inarns Abolition Act”, for grant of

occupancy rights of certain agricultural lands. The

Land Tribunal by separate orders granted occuparic3?.

rights, which when questioned before this co_u’rt’,«l

writ proceeding at the instance of the A’

were quashed and the proceeding iremittedl ;_e .l

Tribunal for fresh consici.e1=aVtionll.’~._ l’l’herea1i’ter.,.._,, tlfiie ii

proceedings were transferred-..,_ to itiiegl Deputy

Commissioner, Bangalore ; D’ist2jict_, Bangalore,

the autl,ioritjI;” “In.alrt1″s Abolition Act”, for
consideration’.p ‘I’h_e’ Asaidnalutliority having noticed the

lands sin ,<TK1esti,0'n~st.ood. vested in the State on

Wq_4il3..1p.iI€l5§'i:'thie__dateHoflcoming into force the amended

prov'iisioinsfof the" "Inarns Abolition Act", and notified,

_duriri'g l.965iA«:""by the State in the list of properties

it it it the Wakf Board, observed that a Wakf once

_l_jcr"eated, continues to be, as such and the properties of

A withei Walif governed by the Wakf Act, 1995, more

A4 A. appropriately in View of Sec.6 of the said Act, held that

the authority did not have the jurisdiction to deal with

M

the applications and accordingiy, by order dated

6.10.2000 AnneXure~»~E transferred the proceedin«g's–ii_'to"'*._

the respective jurisdictional Tribunals A '

under the Wakf Act, for conside1"fation.–'_4i

writ petition.

2. The petition is netpopptoseh-di istateznent
of objections of the respiondentsiiiiffhepiisttii.respondent is
the Secretary of 2
and 3, are Rural District,
Bangalore iiii Iiarnataka, the 4th
respondent “is of Anjuman-e-

HamiY?1thu11aii”is1a;rn’§’ .i’Re.s.pondent-5 claims to have

i§{pp1£;cationviiiifor grant of occupancy rights and

be a person interested in a certain

0 00 _immo”v.ea’bf1e -property, subject matter of the appiications

0 it ” ‘ for gzfant occupancy rights.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits

it “that the Eands in question were Devadaya Inam faliing

within the definition of the term ‘Inam’ under the

QW

Inams Abolition Act,1959 and as on 13.1.1959 stood

vested in the State, as a consequence of which,~:.f’in:”*.,,

terms of Sec.3 of the Act, entitled the petitionerfshito V’

claim occupancy rights by filing necessary

According to the learned counsel, the :”puzhlica’t_ior:.,o«f

list of Wakfs, in the year 19i65:,e:”byincluding:”the,:lands
in question, in accordance ‘thjeflvtlakf «’hAct,”VE1954,
declaring that the said piepeitieei the Wakf,
did not take aweayiorf ‘derl.ud,e the petitioner’s
to claim to the vesting
in the iihtleiflhthe lhems Abolition
Act, 1955′; hastens to add that the

lnams;’Abolition’ ‘Act, does not exclude from

*.l_Zh€ arlrllications for grant of occupancy

Act, in respect of property belong

to the W’akt’«i”‘Board, While under the Wald Act, the

fl’—Trih1.1na1″constituted under Sec.83 does not invest a

.’_eju°1?iVsdiction to consider grant of occupancy rights under

T itjthei mains Abolition Act, 1955, and therefore the

Eeputy Commissioner fell in serious error in holding

4 rli

the applications as not maintainable, for lack of

jurisdiction.

4. Per contra, Smt Anurad_~h;a,’–1.earned4ii”counsei.

for the 1st respondent–Wakf Boardig

that the Wakf Board too filedVanipiigappliicationfor “of
occupancy rights under ‘Act’,7§1955,
in respect of certain’ ji{i’op.ertYa being
agricultural iof.yp_r:opierties notified
during 1965;” that by itself did
not ‘ the constituted under
Sec.83 utlrie ‘ 9 having jurisdiction, to

consid_er..+_he izior grant of occupancy rights.

Eéblliisel out to Secs.6 and 83 of the

cfontend that any dispute in respect of

the rhatters-concerning wakf properties must be

by the Tribunal constituted under the

‘Act. Learned counsel hastens to add that on the

i –ii..:’d’edication of the property as a Wakf, any legal

ii “encumbrance on that property ought to be proceeded by

an authorization of the Wakf Board, on and after

il”§

coming into force of 1954 Act and being a pure
question of fact requires determination by the Tribunal.

Learned counsel further contends that the publication

in the Official Gazette of the list of the prepertiee

including the properties in question in the .

invoking the provisions of the ll

Commissioner, the authority undef’:.the:_’£nVa1ns

Act, was denuded power it the” to
adjfidicate upon cla.i1I1,=.Inad¢’t”‘”iiiflll’7¢SPé¢t’vv.Df,..v’§th0S€

properties and therefore, the A. _ we . Commissioner

was a finding that the

applications “for’grar1’t.iiiof..:oc.cupancy rights under the

Inarns 51-‘.bpolitlionVAct’, 1.955: in respect of Wakf property

rightly so, transferred the

pr’ocoedi11-,<,v,fs«.tio Wakf Tribunal, for consideration.

A. Learned counsel for respondents No.5 and 6

no submission. Learned Addl,. Govt. Advocate

A –«l..:for° State is unable to answer a pointed question of

this court as to whether after the vesting of the lands in

question, as on 13.12.1959, under the Inams Abolition

Act, 1955, the petitioners’ rights, to claim occupancy___of

the properties in question, as consequence of ve«sti.n’g,”‘*.,’

was extinguished, and the Deputy Comiiiiss.iio’1i:e’1~ii–

denuded of his jurisdiction -,eonf,sid_ei>7Z,r, such.

applications, after the publicationnifiof ‘dof,

properties of Wakf in the’ “the

provisions of the Wakf Ac.t,l954? ._

6. There being no lands in

question stood vested in””‘tne, 13.12.1959

under the Aldolitio11:–_’Act, and consequence,
invested rights and protected

tenant,i;,–,., to be riegisterediwas occupants of the lands on

conditi.ons. lnam Abolition Act does not

excluideii ‘its-«.,Vap.Tp1i–cation to registration of occupancies

V it _upon”‘iands’ belonging to the Wakf institutions.

.. . ‘Section 4 of the Wakf Act, 1954 provides for

survey of the Wakf which includes holding

enquiry by Way of local inspection, local

h investigation and following such procedure as

irk

10

mentioned therein, leading to the publication of list,_of

Wakfs under Sec.’5 of the Wakf Act. It is

dispute that the lands in question are Wakf A V’

as mentioned in the iist notified_~'”in*–.thei_4

Section 6 of the Wakf Act 1995

Act, 1954 provides for determination’

regarding a Wakf, rnore approp’riate1_V}.._on questions as

– to whether a particular’ as the

property in the or not,
so also sunni Wakf,
by the ziiiidézéiii Sec.83 of the Wakf
Act. Front “ad of Section 83 what is

discernable thiAa’t~~fhei’-Tribunals jurisdiction does not

enc.orripass’ adetermination of disputes over registration

of’- arising pursuant to the vesting of

the agtricuituraii lands under the Inams Abolition Act.

ii”8.’i The import of the publication of the list of

it ii.gp’ro’perties under Sec.5 of the Wakf Act, 1954 is that

the said properties belong to the Wakf institution and

does not extinguish the earlier vesting of the Inamis in

W9

(J

11

the State under the Inams Abolition Act. It follows,

therefore, that the publication of the list of prope’rti_’es”–.,’

in the year 1965 invoking Sec.5 of the Wakf Act, .

the State did” not intend to extinguish

tenants to claim registration of occuparicies, c’o,nsequ’e.rit..

upon the vesting of the under

Abolition Act.

9. The properties
under the jurisdiction to
considerfll llll lithe petitioners for
registratioraiof the Inams Abolition

Act, stood vested ‘wiith.l’thie. Deputy Commissioner.

. _ in is’ no doubt true that once a Wakf is always

by the Apex Court in Sayyed Ali

A _vs. Andhra’ Firadesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad, reported

AIR 1i9’9i3 SC 972. The question for decision making

sin’-Sayy’e<i Aii's case, relate to the power of the Tahsildar

A .il_4'to~'adjudicate upon the controversy as to Whether a

it .4 iparticuiar immovable property was a Wakf property.

§ }
lrk

12

That question does not arise for consideration in this

case. In that View of the matter, the Deputy

Commissioner misdirected himself in V.

said observation to conclude that he has no jtirisdictionri, T’

and hence the applications were not maintaé_na_’p’1e:,’*so,__as__

to transfer the applications, to the 1 V

consideration.

In my considered opiri_ion’,fit1i1e ‘iorderivviriopugned is
iilegai and callfor it
hi%herasah;.fh¢%§ajtpeaaon a;anoumdi The

order dated’ ” _6£§~; 2000, Annexure-E is

the’–vpr_o_ceeding remitted to the Deputy

“:Com’1’nission.er_”for consideration afresh and to pass

ordersiaiistrictiy in accordance with law, in any event

period of 3 months from the date of receipt of

af’certifi:ed copy of this order.

Sdlfi
Iudge