Karnataka High Court
Sajid Khan S/O Fiaz Ahmed Khan Mulla vs The Tahasildar on 7 November, 2024
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16257
WP No. 105987 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 105987 OF 2024 (GM-WAKF)
BETWEEN:
1. SAJID KHAN S/O. FIAZ AHMED KHAN MULLA,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KUKNOOR PROPER-583232,
TQ: KUKNOOR, DIST: KOPPAL.
2. ZAHID AHMED KHAN S/O. FIAZ AHMED KHAN MULLA,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KUKNOOR PROPER-583232,
TQ: KUKNOOR, DIST: KOPPAL.
3. MAJID KHAN S/O. FIAZ AHMED KHAN MULLA,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KUKNOOR PROPER-583232,
TQ: KUKNOOR, DIST: KOPPAL.
4. KAUSAR BEGUM W/O. MUSHTAK AHMED,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KUKNOOR PROPER-583232,
TQ: KUKNOOR, DIST: KOPPAL.
BHARATHI
HM 5. BASHEER KHAN S/O. AKBER KHAN MULLA,
AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
R/O. KUKNOOR PROPER-583232
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
TQ: KUKNOOR, DIST: KOPPAL.
BENCH
6. LIYAKAT ALI KHAN S/O. AKBAR KHAN MULLA,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KUKNOOR PROPER-583232,
TQ: KUKNOOR, DIST: KOPPAL.
7. SHAMEEN BANU W/O. IMTIYAZ AHMED KHAN MULLA,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KUKNOOR PROPER-583232,
TQ: KUKNOOR, DIST: KOPPAL.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SHRIHARSH A. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16257
WP No. 105987 of 2024
AND:
1. THE TAHASILDAR,
KUKNOOR TALUK,
KUKNOOR-583232,
TQ: KUKNOOR, DIST: KOPPAL.
2. RASHEEDSAB S/O. REHMANSAB UMACHAGI,
JAMIYA MASJID BAZAR (SUNNI)
AND IDGA COMMITTEE (SUNNI),
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,
KUKNUR-583232, TQ: KUKNUR,
DIST: KOPPAL.
3. RAMANAGOUDA S/O. SOMASHEKHARGOUDA,
AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O.HUNAGUND, TQ: HUNAGUND,
DIST: BAGALKOTE.
4. ANANDKUMAR S/O. REKHAPPA ROTHOD,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ILKAL, TQ: HUNAGUND,
DIST: BAGALKOTE.
5. NOOR AHMED S/O. AMEERSAB HANAJGIRI,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O.KUKNOOR, TQ: KUKNOOR, DIST: KOPPAL.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI B. MUHAMMED ALI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO:
i) ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF
WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 07.08.2024 PASSED IN O.S. NO.13/2019 PASSED BY
THE KARNATAKA STATE WAQF TRIBUNAL KALABURGI
DIVISION AT KALBURGI/1ST ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND
DISMISS THE SUIT IN O.S. NO.13/2019 IN ITS ENTIRETY.
ii) ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF
WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO
NAME OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN COLUMN NO.9 OF THE
RECORD OF RIGHTS OF THE PETITION PROPERTY BEARING
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16257
WP No. 105987 of 2024
SY.NO.54/1 MEASURING 04 ACRE 06 AND SY.NO.54/16
MEASURING 04 ACRES 23 GUNTAS SITUATED AT KUKNOOR
OF TQ: KUKNOOR, DIST: KOPPAL BY RESTORE/ENTER THE
NAMES OF THE PETITIONERS AND TO ISSUE FRESH RECORD
OF RIGHTS IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Learned AGA is directed to take notice for respondent No.1. Learner Counsel Mr. B. Muhammed Ali appears for caveator/respondent No.2.
3. Issuance of notice to respondents No.3 to 5 may not be required as this Court is not inclined to pass any favorable orders to the petitioner.
4. On the contrary, this petition is being dismissed as not maintainable at the initial stage for the following reasons.
5. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 07.08.2024 passed in O.S.No.13/2019 by the presiding Officer, Karnataka State WAQF Tribunal, Kalaburagi Division, -4- NC: 2024:KHC-D:16257 WP No. 105987 of 2024 Kalaburagi. This Court does not find it necessary to advert to the facts and merits of the case as the issue of maintainability has been raised by the Registry questioning the orders passed by the WAQF Tribunal.
6. In this regard it is essential to see the provisions of Section 83(9) of WAQF Act, 1995 (in short 'the Act') which is extracted as hereunder:
83. Constitution of Tribunals, etc - [(1)] xxx (2) xxxx "(9). No appeal shall lie against any decision or order whether interim or otherwise, given or made by the Tribunal:
Provided that a High Court may, on its own motion or on the application of the Board or any person aggrieved, call for and examine the records relating to any dispute, question or other matter which has been determined by the Tribunal for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of such determination and may confirm, reverse or modify such determination or pass such other order as it may think fit."-5-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16257 WP No. 105987 of 2024
7. Considering the above said provision, it is seen that any order that is passed by the Tribunal under this provision, the High Court has power to call for records on its own motion or on the application of the Board and examine the records relating to the dispute.
8. The present petitioner has filed the writ petition challenging the said order passed by the WAQF Tribunal. On a careful perusal of the provisions of section 83(9) of the Act, it appears that a Civil Revision Petition would be maintainable against the order passed by the WAQF Tribunal under Section 83 of the Act. An order passed under section 83 of the Act by the WAQF Tribunal would amount to a decree and the Tribunal would also be deemed to be a Civil Court. Therefore, such orders cannot be amenable to writ jurisdiction as already held by this Court in a Cognate Bench judgment in W.P.No.113035/2015 (GM-WAKF) dated 22.06.2016 and the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.200162/2015 (GM-WAKF) dated 19.11.2018. -6-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16257 WP No. 105987 of 2024
9. Under the circumstances, I an in agreement with the submission learned counsel for the respondent that the present petition would not be maintainable. Petitioner will have to be relegated to the appropriate forum to file appropriate petition for redressal of his grievance. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The objections raised by the Registry is sustained.
ii) This petition is disposed of. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to either convert this petition or file a fresh petition under the caption Civil Revision Petition.
iii) Ordered accordingly.
iv) At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner files a memo seeking conversion of this petition into Civil Revision Petition.
The same is accepted. Petitioner is -7- NC: 2024:KHC-D:16257 WP No. 105987 of 2024 permitted to convert this petition into Civil Revision Petition.
v) For statistical purpose this petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE RHR/-
CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8