Karnataka High Court
Sri M Ansar Baig vs Karnataka State Board Of Auqaf on 25 July, 2025
Author: R.Devdas
Bench: R.Devdas
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9172-DB
WA No. 100654 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
WRIT APPEAL NO.100654 OF 2024 (GM-WAKF)
BETWEEN:
SRI. M. ANSAR BAIG
S/O. SRI. USMAN BAIG,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
HEREDITARY MUTAWALLI,
HAZRATH MAQDOOM JANI DARGAH (SUNNI),
NEAR SANGAM TALKIES,
BALLARI-583101, BALLARI DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR S.PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. KARTIK GANACHARI, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by AND:
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 1. KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF AUQUAF,
KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
"DARUL AWAKF", NO.6, CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
BENGALURU-560052.
2. THE ENROLLMENT OFFICER/AUTHORISED OFFICER,
HAZRATH MAQDOOM JANI DARGAH (SUNNI),
NEAR SANGAM TALKIES,
BALLARI-583101, BALLARI DISTRICT.
3. THE DISTRICT WAQF OFFICER,
DISTRICT WAQF ADVISORY COMMITTEE,
BALLARI DISTRICT, BALLARI-583101.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9172-DB
WA No. 100654 of 2024
HC-KAR
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CUM ADMINISTRATOR,
BALLARI DISTRICT,
HAZRATH MAQDOOM JANI
DARGAH (SUNNI),
NEAR SANGAM TALKIES,
BALLARI-583101,
BALLARI DISTRICT.
5. THE TAHSILDAR CUM ELECTION OFFICER,
BALLARI TALUK,
HAZRATH MAQDOOM JANI
DARGAH (SUNNI),
NEAR SANGAM TALKIES,
BALLARI-583101,
BALLARI DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ANURADHA S.R., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SYED IMRAN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 IN CP 23903/2024)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORAL ORDER DATED 15.10.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.100010/2023 (GM-WAKF) BY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, IN INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,.
THIS WRIT APPEAL, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 14.07.2025, COMING ON FOR 'PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT', THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9172-DB
WA No. 100654 of 2024
HC-KAR
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND) This intra-Court appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, by the writ petitioner in W.P. No. 100010/2023, assailing the order dated 15.10.2024.
2. The case has a checkered history of multiple rounds of litigation initiated by the writ petitioner. For the sake of clarity and to facilitate understanding of the factual matrix, the relevant facts are stated briefly.
2.1 The petitioner's great-grandfather, Sri Khadar Baig, had bequeathed the land in question to Hazrath Maqdoom Jani Baba Darga (Sunni), situated near Sangam Talkies, Ballari. Upon his demise, Sri Mansoor Baig assumed the position of mutawalli. After the death of Sri Mansoor Baig, the petitioner's father, Sri Usman Baig, was appointed as mutawalli, and subsequently, Sri M. Basith Baig was appointed to the said position.
2.2 The Karnataka State Board of Waqf (for short, 'the Waqf Board') appointed the appellant as mutawalli vide order dated 21.02.2008, for a period of three years, which expired on -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:9172-DB WA No. 100654 of 2024 HC-KAR 20.02.2011. Thereafter, by order dated 22.02.2011, the appellant was reappointed as mutawalli. However, the said order mentioned that the appointment was "until further orders." This error was rectified by a corrigendum issued on the same date, i.e., 22.02.2011. According to the appellant, the corrigendum reflects his appointment as a hereditary mutawalli. However, the respondent-Waqf Board contends that, as per their records, the corrigendum merely reaffirms his appointment as mutawalli for a period of 3 years and does not confer the status of hereditary mutawalli. 2.3 In view of certain violations alleged against the appellant in leasing the Waqf property without adhering to the procedure prescribed under the Waqf Act and the Rules framed thereunder, the Waqf Institution was placed under the direct management of the Waqf Board by order dated 01.10.2016, and the Deputy Commissioner, Ballari District, was appointed as the Administrator. Challenging the said order of appointment of the Administrator, the appellant preferred a revision petition before the competent authority. The revision authority confirmed the appointment of the Administrator by order dated -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:9172-DB WA No. 100654 of 2024 HC-KAR 19.12.2016. The validity of the Administrator's appointment was called in question in W.P. No. 161/2017. This Court, by order dated 07.02.2017, set aside the order passed in the revision petition and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
2.4 Pursuant to the remand, the revision petition was again dismissed by order dated 04.04.2017. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred W.P. No. 103734/2017, which also came to be dismissed. In the said proceedings, having regard to the appellant's claim that he is a hereditary mutawalli, the learned Single Judge took note of the pendency of a civil suit in O.S. No. 2/2016, wherein the appellant sought declaratory relief to that effect. The order of the learned Single Judge was challenged in W.A. No. 100174/2018, which came to be disposed of in view of the pendency of the said civil suit, with liberty to the appellant to pursue the same. Thereafter, the appellant filed a memo before the Waqf Tribunal in O.S. No. 2/2016 seeking withdrawal of the suit on the ground that the corrigendum dated 22.02.2011 had confirmed his status as a hereditary mutawalli. The abovementioned litigation pertains -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:9172-DB WA No. 100654 of 2024 HC-KAR to, and governs, the core issue as to whether the appellant is a hereditary mutawalli or otherwise.
2.5 Another line of litigation pertains to the appointment of the Administrator. The Waqf Board, by order dated 16.07.2014, in exercise of its powers under Section 65 of the Waqf Act, 1995, appointed the Commissioner, Ballari Urban Development Authority, as the Administrator of the Waqf Institution. Thereafter, similar orders were passed substituting the Administrator from time to time; however, the same are not germane to the issue under consideration before this Court. The order of appointment dated 16.07.2014 was challenged in W.P. No. 107621/2014, which came to be dismissed by this Court by judgment dated 12.08.2014. The writ appeal filed there against in W.A. No. 100804/2014 also came to be dismissed. In the interregnum, an enquiry was conducted against the appellant. The enquiry report concluded that the conduct of the appellant was detrimental to the interests of the Waqf Institution and that he had violated the conditions pertaining to the operation of the accounts. The report further -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:9172-DB WA No. 100654 of 2024 HC-KAR recommended that a detailed audit be conducted for the period from 2011 to 2014.
2.6 In furtherance of the appointment of an Administrator and in relation to the period during which the Administrator could be permitted to manage the affairs of the Waqf Institution, an Official Memorandum dated 05.04.2022 was issued, whereby an Enrolment Officer was appointed to conduct elections for the constitution of a Managing Committee of the Darga in question. Further, a notification dated 20.04.2022 was issued for the enrolment of general body members to the managing committee of the Darga. The said appointment of the Enrolment Officer and the notification dated 20.04.2022 were challenged in the writ proceedings, culminating in the impugned judgment. The learned Single Judge, upon considering the earlier proceedings and the outcome thereof, dismissed the writ petition. The prayer made therein to revive the original suit that had been withdrawn was also rejected.
3. Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, advanced various contentions with -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:9172-DB WA No. 100654 of 2024 HC-KAR regard to the appellant's status as a hereditary mutawalli and the validity of the appointment of the Enrolment Officer for conducting elections to the Managing Committee of the Darga. The principal plank of the argument is the corrigendum dated 22.02.2011, which, according to the appellant, records and confirms his appointment as a hereditary mutawalli. The learned senior counsel also placed reliance on the observations made by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 161/2017 in support of the appellant's claim. Learned senior counsel further contends that continuation of the Administrator beyond 5 years is impermissible.
4. Smt. Anuradha S.R., learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.1, briefly submitted that the correct corrigendum dated 22.02.2011 is produced as Annexure-R1-C at Page No.199 of the record. It is her submission that the corrigendum produced by the petitioner/appellant as Annexure-F, though bearing the same date, is not the authentic document. While the learned senior counsel did not expressly contend that the said document has been altered, the tenor of her submission indicates to that -9- NC: 2025:KHC-D:9172-DB WA No. 100654 of 2024 HC-KAR effect. The learned senior counsel further submitted that the issue as to whether the appellant was appointed as a hereditary mutawalli has already been adjudicated by the learned Single Judge and affirmed by the Division Bench, both of which have attained finality. She further contended that neither the appellant nor his predecessors were ever appointed as hereditary mutawallis, either during the initial appointment in 2008 or at any point thereafter, and hence, the claim of hereditary mutawalli by the appellant is devoid of merit.
5. Considered the submissions of learned senior counsel Sri Jayakumar S.Patil appearing for the appellant and Smt.Anuradha S.R., learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and perused the record.
6. The appellant claims to be a hereditary mutawalli on the ground that the land in question was bequeathed by his great-grandfather, Sri Khadar Baig, and that successive mutawallis from the same family including the appellant's father and uncle, were appointed in a continuous line of succession. The appellant was appointed as mutawalli by order dated 21.02.2008 for a period of three years, which expired on
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9172-DB WA No. 100654 of 2024 HC-KAR 20.02.2011. Subsequently, in the order of reappointment, which was issued pending an enquiry against the appellant, the term of appointment was stated to be "until further orders." On the same day, a corrigendum was issued deleting the words "until further orders." This corrigendum is produced by the appellant as Annexure-F. However, respondent No.1 disputes its authenticity and relies upon Annexure-R1(C), a document bearing the same date, caption, and file number. According to respondent No.1, in Annexure-R1(C), the words "until further orders" were replaced with "for a period of three years," and no mention is made of the term "hereditary mutawalli."
7. Upon perusal of both Annexure-F and Annexure- R1(C), the respondent-committee contends that Annexure-F is not genuine. The correctness or otherwise of these documents requires examination by this Court to determine whether the appellant was ever appointed as a hereditary mutawalli. However, this issue does not warrant prolonged deliberation. The appellant contends that his father was appointed as a mutawalli in a hereditary capacity, and therefore, he too was appointed as a hereditary mutawalli. There is, however, no
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9172-DB WA No. 100654 of 2024 HC-KAR material on record to substantiate this claim. The appellant has not produced any order evidencing the appointment of his predecessors or of himself, as hereditary mutawalli. In the absence of such documentary evidence, the only possible inference is that the appellant was not appointed in a hereditary capacity. This view is further fortified by the orders passed by the competent authority and the judgments rendered by this Court in the earlier rounds of litigation.
8. When the Deputy Commissioner was appointed as Administrator by order dated 01.10.2016, the appellant filed a revision petition before the State Government. The said revision petition came to be dismissed by order dated 19.12.2016. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred W.P. No. 161/2017, asserting his claim as a hereditary mutawalli. The writ petition was entertained only to the limited extent of remanding the matter to the revisional authority for fresh consideration. Upon remand, the revisional authority held that the appellant had been appointed as mutawalli only for a fixed period and accordingly dismissed the revision petition. This order was again challenged by the
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9172-DB WA No. 100654 of 2024 HC-KAR appellant in W.P. No. 103734/2017, reiterating his claim of appointment as a hereditary mutawalli. The said writ petition was dismissed, with an observation that the appellant had already instituted a civil suit in O.S. No. 2/2016 before the Waqf Tribunal seeking a declaration that he is a hereditary mutawalli. Thereafter, the Writ Appeal in W.A. No. 100174/2018 filed against the dismissal of the writ petition was withdrawn, with liberty reserved to the appellant to pursue the pending civil suit. Subsequently, in O.S. No. 2/2016, the appellant filed a memo seeking to withdraw the suit as not pressed, which was allowed. These successive orders, which have consistently rejected the appellant's claim of hereditary mutawalli, have attained finality.
9. The appellant initiated yet another round of litigation challenging the appointment of an Administrator under order dated 16.07.2014, whereby the Administrator was appointed for a period of six months. W.P. No. 107621/2014 was filed questioning the said appointment. This Court dismissed the writ petition while directing that the enquiry be completed within a reasonable time. Aggrieved by the said
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9172-DB WA No. 100654 of 2024 HC-KAR order, the appellant preferred W.A. No. 100804/2014, which came to be dismissed by the Division Bench vide order dated 29.10.2014.
10. Pursuant to the above, an enquiry was conducted against the appellant, and the enquiry report concluded that his functioning as mutawalli was detrimental to the interests of the Waqf Institution. The report recommended that an audit be conducted for the period from 2011 to 2014 and noted violations of several conditions that had resulted in financial loss to the Waqf Institution. In view of the findings of the enquiry report, an order came to be passed for enrolment of general body members and for conducting elections to constitute a Managing Committee for the Waqf Institution. The said order was challenged in the writ petition impugned. The learned Single Judge, after detailed discussion of the multiple rounds of litigation, held that the issue of hereditary mutawalliship had already attained finality in the earlier round of litigation in W.P. No. 103734/2017 and accordingly dismissed the writ petition. Even the submission made on behalf of the
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9172-DB WA No. 100654 of 2024 HC-KAR appellant seeking revival of the original suit came to be rejected.
11. This Court, upon consideration of the material on record as well as the earlier rounds of litigation instituted by the appellant and the outcome thereof, is of the opinion that the claim of hereditary mutawalliship stood concluded in the earlier round of litigation as far back as in 2018. The appointment of an Administrator and the Enrolment Officer for the purpose of conducting elections to the General Body of the Managing Committee of the Darga is a legal consequence flowing from the provisions of the Waqf Act. Once the issue of hereditary mutawalliship has been held against the appellant, it is not open to him to reopen or re-agitate the said issue under the guise of challenging the appointment of the Enrolment Officer. This contention is not available to the appellant for an additional reason as well, namely, that the appellant himself had instituted O.S. No. 2/2016 seeking a declaration that he is a hereditary mutawalli, which suit he later chose not to pursue. In view of the conclusive findings in the earlier proceedings regarding the question of hereditary mutawalliship, this Court is
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9172-DB WA No. 100654 of 2024 HC-KAR of the considered view that no further examination of the alleged corrigendum at Annexure-F and Annexure-R1(C) is warranted in the present writ petition.
12. As rightly submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing for the WAQF Board, the appellant was appointed as Mutawalli on 21.02.2008 (Annexure-D), in exercise of powers conferred under Section 63 of the WAQF Act, 1995. Section 63 empowers appointment of Mutawallis in certain cases. It clearly provides that when there is a vacancy in the office of Mutawalli of a WAQF and there is no one to be appointed under the terms of the deed of WAQF, or where the right of any person to act as Mutawalli is disputed, the Board may appoint any person to act as Mutawalli for such period and on such conditions, as it may think fit. The appointment of the appellant on 21.02.2008 as Mutawalli was for a period of three years only. Therefore, the subsequent order of appointment of the appellant as Mutawalli on 22.02.2011 (Annexure-E) was made, subject to the outcome of the orders in the enquiry pending before the Additional Chief Executive Officer and Enquiry Officer, until further orders. This again is in conformity
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9172-DB WA No. 100654 of 2024 HC-KAR with the express provisions contained in Section 63 of the Act. In that view of the matter, it is difficult to accept the contention of the appellant that by corrigendum dated 22.02.2011 (Annexure-F), the Board decided to delete the words "until further orders" and confirm the appellant as "hereditary Mutawalli" from the date of the order.
13. In the light of above discussion, the other submissions urged on behalf of the appellant do not merit separate consideration, as the issues raised therein have already been adjudicated in the earlier proceedings referred to above and have attained finality.
14. The contention of the appellant that the assumption of direct management of the Waqf property and the continuation of the Administrator beyond a period of five years is illegal does not merit further consideration. It appears that the repeated litigations instituted by the appellant may have contributed to the delay in the constitution of a Managing Committee. However, such delay cannot, by itself, be a ground for appointing the appellant as mutawalli.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9172-DB WA No. 100654 of 2024 HC-KAR
15. In the light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is well-founded and supported by cogent and justified reasons. No infirmity or error warranting interference by this Court is made out. Re-examination of the contentions raised only leads to the affirmation of the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge.
16. Accordingly, the appeal is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.
17. It is needless to observe that the respondent- authorities shall complete the process initiated under Annexures-A and B within a reasonable time, and in any event, not later than three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Sd/-
(R.DEVDAS) JUDGE Sd/-
(K V ARAVIND) JUDGE CLK_CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2