INTEHEHKHICOURTCH?KARNATAKA ,_
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA '
DATED THIS THE 251?--i DAY OF FEBRUARY," _
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT: J'-Ez;§U,NJA:;;,E__V '
WRIT PETITION No.21 16 'c3EE'2o0e='V(i;;R;E_E,. LA;
BETWEEN % AT "
KARNATAKA BOARD " AA
REPTD. BY ITS CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER;"NvO:;'€>, - '
CUN1\¥INGHAM"R.Of\D§=. 1
BANGALORE? 052, g A ...pE'm'10NER
[BY .3.
SR1 pas MALIEPATIL; A}3yE., ADV.,)
AND
1. STATE (51? I_§Ap.NA'"rA:{A.
REPE). BY ITS SECRETARY.
V" REVENUE 'EDEPARTMENT,
Ms ._BL.r1vLDI1\;G,BANGALORE.
E: .VLA1\:j§"fTR_1BjEijNAL. GULBARGA.
BY ETS QEAIVRMAN, GULBARGA.
KHAJA HUSSAIN.
_ ».js/0=s¢YED RAZAD HUSSAIN,
E IDEA!) BY LRS.
'~AnneX13fre
V counsel for the petitioner vehemently
Han inarniland and Vests with the Wakf board pursuant fir
was that the property was declared as a Wakf property
and it was so notified under Section 5 of the Wakf Act.
According to the petitioners the said land has lost the
character of an inam land and the ;)rovision'sV.Vcl_f::l't_he
inam abolition are not applicable. Thus
grant of application. The land trihiinal '*
noticing the gazette" "right of
Muthavaili to claim of the
properties piarsiiant 21.2.2004
granted of respondent No.3
solely Klhaja Hussain is shown
in the the record of rights for the
year_–]..963:64._l toV.v’1ElE$6e6.7. The impugned order is at
sub_tn;its_ thatdzonce the property looses the character of
Muthavalli and does not give him the status of a tenant.
Indeed the two lands in respect of which the occupancy
rights are sought for are declared as Wakf pr0}éie»rty.
Indeed Tribunal has not considered the df-.A V
jurisdiction inasmuch as whetheij hadlhpeewer
into the question whether be it
granted in favour of tl~’1e__«third”‘rft§Pllfi”3l¢ntAl H?1Vi1’1§ mgard
to the specific provision regard
to the fact its character
and the only through her
Muthavalli, I am of
the viexiirthatl the of granting occupancy rights
or clajsming’ ecctrvparicjf rights does not arise. The
l V. brder alsleldoes not speak and deal math these
-rnatter. Indeed there must be a finality to
the”‘pr0ee’edings. The matter has come up to this Court
VlL””forVeLthe “second time. I am of the Vi€W that the question
‘rerriitting the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh
8
disposal in the ttircumstanoes is not at all warranted
and having regard to the finding recorded by me that
the Land Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal
with the question even under the Certain Imam At)oti’tio11
Act the impugned order is liable to be_;”i’r’;te;*fer;edAL
Consequently. the following order is passed. V
ORDER =. T’
Petition: is i 1: The order Annexure
8 is Qfiashéd» 3 ‘it
Rule_ is is’sa;ed ‘ a,.nd._r;:1ade absoiute.
Sd/-3
FUDGE