IN THE H§GH COURT {DP KARNATAKA AT BANC':AL{§RfE
Dated the 1555 day fApri1 2009 ' V
:BEFORE:
THE I-iON'§~3LE MR,JUS'§'ICE :_¥E,JAGé;N'1\E';i51f%i§4'v'-- _ V: %
CIVIL REVISION P}3;'I'1'I'IONA_ Nix. .3gg@;;2g%ea .k ' J f
BETWEEN :
1. M.E}.A.Hafeez,
S/o late M.E.LTsman,
Aged about 54 yz::'a~.;cfé:.. f
2. M.U.Nc:-oxjahaaizz, .
D/0 Kate
Aged abc;ut'?i§L%'i'yeeirs.§
3. ¥vi.U.F'ayaz';_». ' :
Sf.0..1af€*..55-E-+;USm.éIh_V" "
Pgged ahsixt §*ea11a, '
4. .13 .'i~I_ag&@1V1 Sit ,, 2 _.
S/oiatez PvI.i3.U:=;maiI;._ '
Aged a:;;ou:%3::s
"V ' 5. V. ¢ Mtlfliié @...§§afee,
Sir: !at'e._._M.E.Usmaax1,
' Tfiggti gahgnui 34': years.
6;. "'v%'M;u;"¥fir§g?=2§,
Ufa late M.E.Usman,
1-'xgfid ahcmt 28 years.
1 n 'T are 1*/a Bychanahalli,
Block, i{usha1anagaxaT@w12,
Semawarawt.e T311211,
Koéagu District.
.. . Fatiiieners
( 83% Sri M.Na1a_§5ana Bhat for M] s Sub=ba;rao 8:. C,'.{).,
Advncattz. )
AND:
1. The: Chief Execufiive Qificer,
Karnataka. Siate Board Qtf Waldss,
represented by the Chief
Executive Officer, Cunningham Road,
Bangalore ~-- 560 ()0 1.
2. The Jamia Masjid, T.
Kushalanagara, Keciagu; Bistxict,' - ..
represented by its Secretary§"'~, ' .
- ' ' . Respcéndents
( By Sri R.i-'sbciui for R~1.
Sn' (3. R. Goulayg Adxraéatg jthgif )
Civil R€'f1iS"i(%3j'~Pefifigfi.:.,§u1lE€1 "l%1fid£§é"'V§§éCti{)11 1 15 of the
:1. 9.0. agajzm grciér dated 26.7.2098
passed in Q..V.s;r~$:g.?? i4;2E>"é:3«. fig file of the Presiding
Oflicer; Vlviyssre Division, Mysore,
dismissing' gihe flied, Section 83(2) of the Wald" Act
read witii Qfcier 7;' R23: 4z.Jht: 0. P111. praying to declare the
ouiexy .. pasé;Ie3,V' "'-Kéw;NCR/115100/23:39:-92 dated
as void and iizaperativm and far
»c@:i335a§:q1.1c1zfi.~3,i 'i1=,__1ief of injuncfion.
V p€:1'f§'x:io::'x coming on for admission this ciay, the
cofifit m;:{éc"iEf1e fmilowing :
O R I} E R
T118 cmnplaint filed by R62 Jamia Masjid. before
R-- 1 Chief EX€C1.itiV(? Officer, Eamataka State Board of
Wakffs, allegng that the petitianers have encroached
%~
'I
3
upgn the waié' property, led to an order being passed by
R} by holding that tilt': premises which are nmntioned
in the conxpiaint schedule are wakf properties arici-3:116
petitioners, W113 have bean in csccupation
wit.hout. any p€I'II1iSSi0I1 from the Wakf BQg1:f:d~-,..ti:f,F:"rt%fl§fe;«--T K
have to deliver pcssession of thejpre:1ii$6'S__ if: q11es"iiQf1_;Q:'
R- 1. Thizs ertier 91" R? ~::;attc::¥' <41" the suit
fiifzd by the p€tt§.?iDI3€ZfS"i;1%1:d€iZ 'V'--V cf the Wakf
Act, 1995 ._ for a declaratien
that t:h§: is null and void and
iI1{)}J€I:;:3fi5ZiVt3,A for consequential relief of
pemnanefzfi * §11'}i,:1f1€itic»:r1 _restraining the respondents
heiffijiflv f:m1’I1 éxuiicfirferirxvg with the peaceful possession and
»e:r:}Qy1’r:ent*Qf*–$1_1e $111: premises by the petitioners.
suit was C01″1tf:Sted by the respondents
‘V’-..her€i1i,VVf._é§1d the 16aI”I}€é judge of the trial court, after
,ii”a:_::§?;;1g necessary issues and Consiéering ‘Chg snridanca
__pia::t€d and upon healing tha Cfiililfifii for tha partie$,
ultimatsly dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs 1.8., the
p(*:f.ii1i€)1″1€I’S h€:I”SiI”£. Aggiaved by the said arder ef the
.%
,,/
4
trial court, this revision petition is pIf’t3f(‘:1T€(i unclar
S€Cti01″1 1155 0f this C.P.Ci. read with Section 83(9) of thfi
Am.
3. It is {ha case of the petitioners thai: t_i1e}gf’i”;a;v¢
in possessien and enjoyment of the “”pr€-qjjertieé
which are in S.N0. I S.N0.
82/*2 nmasuring Inttasuring
0.18 acres ..:;s}it:1at;§ééV:1″ Towza,
S0mawa1>apé£fi§;««._ ::i§i$fi;iét, and it is their
ftlgrthezg’ cf’ possemion $0 enjayeé
by t.l2eV:V’pefifion:§”‘;?§; Cf.()I§1I11it:tr3£: insiittzted a
suit in V :1’§34,~,{i2 for the relief of deciaratiun
5i=’€<;z):ver:gf c;f"d;3rr2ages and thgrugh the said Sliit was
_d'€:<§frct:rii-_j.i;';.. 3E':3géz:.:§;1r at' {£16 Jamia Masjid. Committse, an
p61:ifi03"l€I'S in R.A.N<:~.. E25/1975, the
"..,'§u{1g{Ii.E;Ii"i; of {ha itriai cent: was sat aside anti {ha suit
V":V'f.$3. S.u4'i_iisI11iss€rd and this led {ha Jamia Masjid Cemrrlittee
prefer second appeal to this court: in R.S.A.No.
566 ,1 .1978 321d the said appeaé was also dismissed.
y
la.)
4. S”£1bS€q{1€1’1fi§f, in the year 1999, a1’1othe:r suit was
filed by ihe. [I3I’€S€1’1t R42 and it was in C}.S.N0. 4;’ 199% in
which the reiicif Qf declaratiori and iI1juI}CTiGB_ “*«’_g¥’E;S
szmght and ageing: the order passed in ‘
injmacticn relief sought, the peiitioners p£”&f§::’1*ed_j’&.a;i2j.
appeal in M.A.Na. 4/1999
aiiuwad and the 0rdé;:’«._..€:f_ 539,5 Set aside and
the suit in O.S.NQ. 4/:v_§§:}£:v»,¢i§s131issed§ it is
also the f;tv.?§.;«.”‘1V%Vl”d:’é5’e«3;:1’li<::I* to tha above
suit, {).S.Na. :12/1997
and gismissed foflowing 21 111613111} fiifid
by thfi piaéxfztifl" f§'i''':€:£*<3iI';, '—-:.,. '
herein filed the ctzampiajm; before
order gyassfid by R-1 requixting the
pIctii:i 0I1<ér'S['j_ ti': dtizlivfiz' vacant possfissien 9f the Suit
prezhiség was again qumtioned before this <:;m.1:*: by the
A §§ €€iii_Qn&rs in Writ Petition Na. 27188/2003 and by
' <§:§f'de:tf* dated 17.6.2003? this court. diS§JOE§€(i cf E114: 'ii:'I'i'{
'4 petition by abserving that the pstitieners have Gther
aitatrzativa efficacious rémedy 1:0 pursue undar the fiat
2:»
gal
and, tkierefsxrfi, thfi W"§f'i§; petiticii was ffijacéiied by 'gi?iI';g
three: m0I1thS tima to the g3etiti:m€1"$ in apggifuagkxli é'z:_{1é<
appm'pI'iat;<: aL:1:h01'i£:ies. It is thereafter ';1.§::§*e:.st;figt
suit in O.S.§\E0. 14/2083 was i'T;1cd…§§§;
Iaading 3:0 cenfitmafion of the Cz'r:i_f1" by _i§7R– i u
herein and i_:hr:: suit 0f the
6. The iearued cs1:1§s§ f:§3~_ ref-311*i:’:g* 1:0
31;}: the ab0v€’.Vfz1¢:ts, Vxfietitiorzers have
been in have been
me11iiQ-1:»
,1
‘E’
5
the suit. pren1ises for a bag p<:1'iod 0f films arid ever": the
filldiiilg of the trial cmlrt on isssue No.3 if} OQEE—,No.
184/ 19471.2 as regarfig the petitieners
the title 1)}; £idV€I'S€ pas:-"$633103 is alse iI1M_fé§v;Qu:* "0f 'E".§1{', _&
petitioners and $9 313:) the §énsv_;%&:.V to -1'is_$}1.:<,';».__
c0:1<:€:':1i11g jurisciictien. I}:1derA'fii€::se Ci:*é.L§:n1S!fa::(:.é'$,
the iInpug1€:(:i ordier p:%§fs€{1'A.v_b}';Vj_jizfilajgci trial judge is
nut $u$tainable..§.:1 law.-H . V
?. it is ;'€i}V:'»%;:i; Masjicl C0111mii:tee
was 'it: fi}.{§'~.€»8_}"1i'C§§" I't':3f€i'ITt3(Zi to above
and t}ii:A {3E_eseIii:':'I€v§2'?».i§§–.i"%fig: same Jamie. Masjid, but a
1'agist.t:red I<.:31e'. I$§eir.:1*t}*£iéiess, the findings recordad in
'~ _tft1f:i_ "i;3a__;:,1;i€17 sui €s;———-ti:er€fere, Qpezrate as res judicaia
"p1:*é;:=§¢nt respondexzis more so when R-1 Wakf
the. preperty thrtmgh R-2. The leammd
..,co1111s~':Vl_éi~;1sa sfisngly cantended that in ortzier to bewme
V':-V property, there has 1:0 136 deiivery 31" possession
aggnd, in the instant case, the petiti0ne1*s have been in
cantinuens pessessiafi of the three items which are the
subject mattar 0f' the suit via, house, hittalu and vacaxxt
3
site. The1’ef0:*e§ the fmding reearéed by the learzmd trial
judgrc cannot be upheld in iaw both 013 facts asVjs${<:2;'ii.uas
in iaw. The ieamtled munsei aisc: made refer§*;iiC<é..'_'t£§ _f;fi<f:"« _
provisiefss contained in Omar 23 sggue :(4;k,%%ai:i;i¢r%-2 mag-;% « x
2, and Ordar 23 R1236 3(a) $9 (:Q i;;1]:é11.d fiéé
earlier suit was disnjissed any
liberty bemg rese11.rt:r:Vi%"4-..f;:'1*1f:3;A "fi_}j1"1g subsequent
suit, therefore, {:1-:}§3:$ ' V
8. in centmatiens, the
ieanaezi” placed reiiance 0:51
the d§::_i’sie§_1″1::~:V 19*r3(1) Mys.L.J. 1.93, AER
1979 sC sS1,’V 2fi{)=§(.1)’E;s§3.r,L.J, 2250, AIR 2091 Calcutta
~«,1e2;Lv%«:%(2§p<:%)2 s{<i:s::%&&M:.;::1 and A112 :9?9 so 23%. In the
_ Gf iaw laid down in the afarementicned.
d7¢’:_i$i:313_$ ‘afiiigriz 13:16 cantentiens put fgrward as above, the
._1@a,::{1er:};’ “r::m1:1$e1 far the petiti0:1e.:r*ss saught. fer setting
“« gs?éid§i=’:_« 131$ or-tier, whiaia is i1::1p’u§1eci in this i{‘€’ViSiOi1
” ,.. A ” péztitian,
5,’ On the 93217161′ hané, the Ieamsd cmlnsel fer Rm}
Wakf Beard, at f§:e outset, gubmitted that the prenfises
//
-6
t
1:
aspects have baen considered by the learried judge 0f
the Uiai 00311. in the, Course 6f the ifl1p2.1g1€d order and,
as such, this mvisien petiticsn lacks merit and is ij:afl§l’e_te
be dismissed. Refarence was also: magiiéi ‘ _ifi3§::”« _
admissicm made by P.Ws.1 and 2 ‘w
exagminatiori in this mgard. M£}reevs_*:3, the -sI”_’zbJi1j
made is that the A Masjici
Committee did mat beirlg decided
by U16 snug; ‘&’z1’:’11i”i€S€t factors inte
account, tiixsrg. figs rightly dismissed
13. Referfhég of the Amt, the submission
1119.;”1g%%’::’ ‘is. thai’ Board itself may collect the
‘rétgarding any property which it has reason
the wakf pmgrerty and if any questiml
–V re1z§f:i:;g’V :1j;.:;} i§*heiit1ar ‘£113 property is wakf preperty of H01:
: .,2:A’:*i:~:r:’,.s, then, after Inakizzg nacessaxy enquiry, the Board
‘Aéiecide the said quastion and its decisian shafl
” Eficame finai uniess I’€VGk€d or modifieci by the
‘}”‘r*ibu;::1a.E. 111 {I33 instant Cami; the decisiam taiic-31 by thx:
jg,»
xi
under challenge: passed by the learned trial jL1:;i:g<?. in
O.S.No. 14/2003.
16. FIUH1 what has been submitted _by~ ” 2
counsel fer the partiés 313d .’thfe1.ig”§:L.__. t.”i;s
matérial placed, it is net 111′ d§SpLZVf£?V_f}13¥L tiicé iffsenis
which are S.Nc:}. 82/1 I11c=:a.s1._1v%*:i’I7;’g €}’._v()1a 82/
measurhlg (3133 aL«::1″eV:«%3a..”.t_..1V:t:1 fitéestxing 0.18 acre
wart: dec}3.1’e§1 é be ViI’t1,1€:”i ef the
gazette T136 said
zletificatifizfi.iI;3}s0- .V:”<§:§}éivé:dV.– 1*r::ct:i1?'ic::a'i:i<3n of the
aI1trie§'*._wh_icif iijfimlijlisheci in the gazstta on
'29. 1. 199¥§:.Lf1'i1r:V $aiAd..v:jQ..§5ficati0n was :10: C_{L1§'.iSt.i0I"_{€id by
thefiegiifiiozgfirsaijfitfefxtte' any farum. Section E: of the Act
iii;-spate regarding Waid' makes it. £31331' that
a A'g§é:r$011,"V'L:w1"i0 is i11te:r'<:st€<:i in any pr0"pe1"tiy and is
aggfievéfi the said _prop€1*ty being éazziared. as a vsralfi
A "if in tha list, may iI'1Stit'LIiZ(': a suit in tha Tribtmal
' £5; decide the C}i.l€S'fi{3I"}. as regards the: nature cf the
property being wakif p'r0pe1*ty 01* 0ti1erWise and the order
Qf the 'I':iE3L1:1afi in such nzatterg shall become finai and
3-//'
,?
14
the proviso fm*th€:r makas it iziear tint mi) suit shall bf?
em.e;’$;aj:1«:-:d 135.: {ha ‘£’1’ibu;r1al after expiry (sf £3116 yea:1’*f;’0m
the data of }Z)’LZb}_iC8.Eif3I’}. 01″ the list {if Wald’. in
case, the Ilotificatian is of the year 1972 an£i..vV1:1?}_:*€L’t}”1a11T_4
37 ysars hava eiapseci. The said b?'(’14{;:11i_f’fa{_32:’1′?L”fi(“;3If§; ‘-3r’;3:.a,js;”irV1::;ii«
been challenged before any fI’riE::1,1f1a}.”=.The1f:::§;-fa’, ‘ti1é1’é”is
merit in the s1:b1ni.ssion t1.j.€ cV{:$}1%1V,Hse1 fer
R-1 that the: suit its§:1fA_ of tbs
pmperfiy ‘ not have heel:
fiisd a§’t.:_:_:f Exélareaver, no
such 13:: the :10t.ificati0:1 as on
c1a€e.’4’M’n’
3.’? ‘3-“&s=§’.a.r air; piaced Eggs the ieamed Counsel for
31fi€». _Vpe:iiiiQr;§éi=$__ C211 proviso to Section ‘”?(1) of the Act is
‘(::)z;1€:§:”5£ir::;5i’;-__t;ii,té’V said pmvisca mentions that whera any
~V c;L1t$éti;<3i9::,V.1*i5a5$ been heard and fizlailjsg ciecided by the civii
.,cirs;13".§ iii a suit institutfid before c01nme:1{:em&mi of the
— flue Tribune} shall 110$: reopen Susi: questions. in
Wi’:’i’:1«.S.No. 184/1972, the n<:rt.i:f"1cat;ir;»z1 EX.D-'2
/T"
1
£5
was never caliztd in t:;jL16s¥jcm in @115 said Sui’: but, on the
ether 11a:1a:i, the suit. was resisted by the petiti€}1’1€=§i;:-:T.11
the goxmd £1333′: tile}! are ii] p0sst3s$io1″1 ef t11é:;’sii§.:;.i.fi€£Ea;_§§.;.
But, fitie {G thfif suit items was :1r;=.i:__ “–S€f§j’i(}{1S
cozztmversy bemrsezi tha pa3:’£i€::s.[‘
18. The next; aspect is tizéfivitéls péiitisiagfs,_zi§p;{a:;ai:3’1ed ” V
this cmxrt in ‘£§}’.P.N0._. 27 138,’-ii(}£f)3′ -~.._a1″1d’ £i12;*::st.i».;§n<3d the
order passed.' the Ieamad
Single JL1€i gVf§:_"—0:1:"' " '?Vif:i~é;'-:.vg:;:}s;:1f§:;'4'_ vfif;i.}.:: re3'e.e:ti11g the wlit
p+::t.iti0:1;–~~T. "p<i¥;i'1fi011ers in apprnzactx
a;3p1'9;§;1fi.a¥;¢ 'a_.:i£&§5é;3:fit"3;r4 %V's.;1f:i:?'_;e19 the Act as regards the
i111p11g:i;c:c§"L'–=sf;1*:ie:r lffiafififiii by K4 is C€3I1C€I'fl€';£ii, it is
V. thairésafpfi, fiiaat; "1'_h::…§:»:atiti0n6;'s flied the: Suit. in quésiieza
'L§£i:i{%:f –83(2) of thfr": Act: far dac:Earat.i0n that 1:116
:35:'r~dé:" passiégfi. .§'::y R»: is nu}: and Veizi urlder Section 54 9f
the $31."
A ~ “- ,Er; the <3{)UI'S€ 01' his erder, the 1e3:'1'1$d trial judge
' 3330 refsrred to the aviéencea of P.Ws, 1 and 2 and ajrrived
'4 at am CQXECIIISEOE that the dacuments §:2mduv::ed by the
pctitimzxifirs viz', EXs.P«1 'E0 113 am thaxxiseivas are flat
9/
1; P
iii:
S’L1’ffi{)i€I}{, ti) pram Ilsa: 0116 Abdtflla was 1316 abseiute
0wm:1′ of the Suit. prapertim and the Wi{I1€$S€S E:§<:af:;iI1_eci
01': brahaif of the p€:titsZ0m:rs alga a.<;imi'£_it;ed _
that fi'1e:"e are no dG€3:L11I1f3:I1tS {.0 sffgow t;h.at.' vt§ix:3""a1%:AV:E1_é " =
{)'i'i.?"1"}€1'S 0f the suit p1'pe;1*tj.? mat ilfidifil” the fact and abet:
magiféé 0%3$éri:.é§;fjQr§ to the effect that the ;:zé3t_i:i0:1€:”s
¥1’c:.:t<§i1": (:ha.1ie11ge:.:i the gagettc: noi:ificat.io11
'.1-Eli'; Hate of {£18 ohgezwatrimxa made by this
V -' 1i i’E:..§:’i:’ §,’¥.{ P§§\E'{;. 2?_338/2803, 616 Eaarmed iiréa}. judge
K x ” 4_h€:V}5:’i that the, suit; was filed by Uflfi pe’i:it,iox1eI’s 1101: E9
§*,’.-*.=j,f§_»”a:.”1A)A1:’:si’:1 their right, $11116 or interast over the suit
” w;i’I’01;»e1*t}* and, therefore, the suit that was fi1r:d against
the ordar passeé by Rwl is net maintaimable,
2%
-\¥
the otllex’, and the third decision reported in AIR 1979
SC: 289 lays down {ha law that where ~
possessien sf 3 sixarxgei’ is included in thfi _
under $€:(:i:i0n 5422), the strangex’ 13.9: L:3′:t:i€:-;::’§.=}éiig’;51i;.i<,:1;3
to file suit within one year Bfid the }:i'St iS"i1C)'i:.£fO"fiC1i;?,.$iE%sf:'
agaiflst him.
2 1. These: threfi decgifirgriéé’ v”‘»’$;::;;}1icable to thf’:
instant case , firs: decision is concemedg' the triai court has the evidence and the
adlnisfiigxfi fgfititianfirs’ W’it[1(3SS€S {E1831 no
d@c11:11€:t1£”*£itg!C iééafs-“Vt;’aC€d by the pcititionars 111
c
..v_’res3§§§;C’£.\\.% (sf $51365 “mist properties and seeorzdly, the
_ Iiofiiiicatigmé”i:s;$Lf,ad in 1972 had remained Lxnchafienged
:i11_1;]h:s
__22. ‘ as the other dacisiens are cansemed, AIR
A ” ‘ SC 2289 is also irxapplicabla because that was a
‘ C3861 W}f1€I’€ E136 Strangfir was found ta be a non»-1133511131,
whereas, in the iimtant same, it is net in di$f.3i1t€ that the
petitionars are :31} 111113111113 and acctording to the leaxfned
}
-5!
2a
that the eariier suits flied were withdrawn withaut.
raservmg any Iiberty to file any fresh suit. But, x&€f18.: is;
to be noted is that the present R~:2 was met. tiaa.’
in the eariier stlits inasmuch as the eagriicitf were
filed by L1m*e@’s{e1″‘ed body
reg’si:c:r¢:d body aiollg with _v’Fh é’ Board as
such was not a “txi;(§~/.51;its. AS far as»
the later suit flaw ir1 .1–‘)9’;;}’V is ;:4:)IiI:E;.1’if1t:a?::i;,'”‘{1?:a”t was axse
Wit11d1″awn. J11 méséz. _Vsui;%:;*{,’- ,th锑g;a.zet1:e notification
éatfid 2_2_:5.”}.9′?2.;_,wa3 _:’1e3}é1=’- isgéua at all nor was there
any f’1i’2__ciir_tg gazette 110tiiicatio:1 Ex.D–2.
‘1’heI'<3f0:*65f'£.1":*r:v C€;n€i:§1t;i§::.»41§Vi.1t folward that the S-'L1iT.S fiiad
lat:-,2. En'-' ._f;i§i:e by the resp011ti€:nts herein were hit:
by, principle sauna: in way {3QiI1€ tag the
"asS;–é.snta::*;<fi€:'~;»._0i',.t§ie petitioners as the patizisners liavé net
quéstiiitgeéi "vibe said gazaaite. natificatian iaisuse in 1972
K x V befztgm .f0r1:zm til} this date. As $3.161}, the: ruling cited
H113 :'€ga;rt:1 alga cajmgmt help the C888 of Chi?
V' 'finetitiaiieirs. E/
x)
22
‘L116 suit pmperties hfijiffi bfien pI’C!V€:Ci to be sf Waicf by
LISE1’.
:28. The abavfi decisions apply ‘:0 the t:as{:””‘o:1V”.
inaszxzuch as both the trial cou1’ff’.a,$e_$1?éil £§1s_ R.–_}’.f3 “r_§i*dé1”. _
co1:2.(:11r1’ent}y held that . r$z.;it §:’:;_perf§t3,s
pmpertieg and the f01tV’S%3;5§1 Ea» fi’11diiig’-is..v*i:1’aced 1:0
the gazette netfiicatififi and the said
xiotifioaiian even after 3%;
dccades. . is ‘ct}I1C:..L1’r€1i€ flndfiflgs
of fact” tha suit property as
axsakf :’3js}hhe::1 that finding is based 011
the ga33:fé’«..I:€3€§i§W{:ai;i-¢;>i1i”n0 f ‘(ha yaar 19?} which is IIGZ
A}3é§ ‘f..i1€;””‘i§f3ti?Ii0I1€i1’S hitharta in any cf the
_ f:i1:”j,i:°;1,”‘*v.i.,1;’A ..f{1
V…)
Si)» in the result, 1 pags the foilowing Qrder:
The 1’€ViSiQI} pfitiiiflll is ciismisaed.
0150/-