Karnataka High Court
Mohammed Ayub And Ors vs The Karnataka State Board Of Aquaf And ... on 4 September, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7013
WP No. 208704 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.208704 OF 2020 (GM-WAKF)
BETWEEN:
1. MOHAMMED AYYUB
S/O HAJI MOHAMMED HUSSAIN,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
HOUSE NO.7-1202/56/74/A,
NEAR HOLLOW BLOCK FACTORY,
ISLAMABAD COLONY, RING ROAD,
KALABURAGI-585104.
2. MOHAMMED ILIYAS
S/O HAJI MOHAMMED HUSSAIN
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE.
HOUSE NO.7-1202/56/74/A,
Digitally NEAR HOLLOW BLOCK FACTORY,
signed by B ISLAMABAD COLONY, RING ROAD,
NAGAVENI
Location: KALABURAGI-585104.
High Court Of
Karnataka 3. MOHAMMED IDRIS
S/O HAJI MOHAMMED AYYUB
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
HOUSE NO.7-1202/56/74/A,
NEAR HOLLOW BLOCK FACTORY,
ISLAMABAD COLONY, RING ROAD,
KALABURAGI-585104.
4. MOHAMMED UMAR
S/O MOHAMMED ILIYAS
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7013
WP No. 208704 of 2020
OCC: AGRICULTURE.
R/O HUSSAIN GARDEN
MSK MILL AREA,
KALABURAGI-585104
5. MOHAMMED KHAISER
S/O MOHAMMED ILIYAS
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE.
R/O HUSSAIN GARDEN
MSK MILL AREA,
KALABURAGI-585104
6. MOHAMMED AIWAZ
S/O HAJI MOHAMMED AYYUB
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE.
R/O HUSSAIN GARDEN,
MSK MILL AREA,
KALABURAGI-585104.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. AMEET KUMAR DESHPNADE SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. GANESH S. KALBURGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF AQUAF
DARUL A WAKF NO.6,
CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
BENGALURU-560001
R/BY ADMINISTRATOR
2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF AQUAF
DARUL AWAKF NO.6,
CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
BENGALURU.
3. THE WAKF OFFICER
DISTRICT WAKF
ADVISORY COMMITTEE,
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7013
WP No. 208704 of 2020
MAIN ROAD, OPP: OLD HOSPITAL,
KALABURAGI-585103
4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
BY ITS SECRETARY,
M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560009.
5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
GULBARGA DISTRICT,
GULBARGA-585101.
6. THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER
GULBARGA DISTRICT,
GULBARGA-585101.
7. THE TAHSILDAR
GULBARGA DISTRICT,
GULBARGA-585101.
8. SAYEED S. S.
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
SOCIAL WORKER, H.NO.EWS-146,
SHANTINAGAR, KHB COLONY,
MSK MILL ROAD,
GULBARGA-585101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.MAYA T.R., HCGP FOR R4 TO R7;
SRI.ANANDKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.P.S.MALIPATIL, ADVOCATES FOR R1 TO R3
SRI.GURUBASAVA C. NAYAK, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.RAMACHANDRA K., ADVOCATE FOR R8)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER ENQUIRY NO.KSBA/ENQ/40/
GBA/2015, REF.NO.COMPT NO./LOK/BCD/ 4233/2015 VIDE
ANNEXURE-J PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7013
WP No. 208704 of 2020
ORDER
In this writ petition, the petitioners are assailing the report of the Chief Executive Officer, Karnataka State Board of Wakf, Bengaluru, dated 30.10.2019 (Annexure- J), order dated 28.12.2012 (Annexure-G) passed by respondent No.7 and the order dated 18.08.2011 (Annexure-F) passed by respondent No.6 and such other reliefs.
2. Relevant facts for the adjudication of the case are that the petitioners claim to be the owners in possession of the agricultural land bearing Sy.Nos.12, 12/1, 12/2, 12/3, 12/4, 12/5, 12/6 and 12/7 of Hirapur village, Kalaburagi taluk and district, measuring to an extent of 12 acres 32 guntas.
3. It is averred in the writ petition that the aforementioned land in Sy.No.12 measuring 12 acres 32 guntas was granted to Sri.Mohd. Hafeez S/o Mohd. Jaffar, by order dated 12.08.1968 as per the provisions under the -5- NC: 2023:KHC-K:7013 WP No. 208704 of 2020 Mysore Village Officers Abolition Act, 1961 (Annexure-A). It is stated in the writ petition that the father of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and grandfather of petitioner Nos.3 to 6 - Sri.Mohd. Hussain (plaintiff) has filed O.S.No.37/1978 before the Civil Judge at Gulbarga against Mohd.Hafeez S/o Mohd.Jaffar and others and the said suit came to be decreed on 06.07.1978 holding that the aforementioned land is belonging to the plaintiff-father of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and therefore, declared that he is in actual possession and owner of the said land (Annexure-B). The petitioners have produced the revenue records namely patta receipt insofar as the subject land is concerned, wherein it is stated that the subject land is belonging to the father of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 (Annexure-C). The record of rights envisages the ownership vests with the father of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and the land has been shown as "patta" (Annexure-C).
4. The petitioners have produced the award made by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Gulbarga, stating -6- NC: 2023:KHC-K:7013 WP No. 208704 of 2020 that the portion of the land in Sy.Nos.12/1 and 12/2 has been acquired by the concerned authorities for formation of Ring Road at Gulbarga (Annexure-E). In the said award, the name of the ancestors of the petitioners has been shown for awarding compensation. It is the case of the petitioners that the sixth respondent has issued notification dated 18.08.2011 (Annexure-F) stating that Sy.No.12 belonging to the petitioners herein has been identified as the said property belonging to the wakf and accordingly, the aforementioned notification is issued. It is also to be noted that the respondent No.7 has conducted enquiry as per Annexure-G and opined that the subject land is belonging to the father of the petitioners and accordingly, relegated the parties to establish their rights before the competent Court as per order dated 28.12.2012 (Annexure-G). Mutation register has been produced by the petitioners. It is further averred in the writ petition that the respondent No.8 herein who claims to be a social worker, has filed a complaint to the Karnataka Lokayukta, stating that the subject land is belonging to the Wakf -7- NC: 2023:KHC-K:7013 WP No. 208704 of 2020 Board and accordingly, sought for interference of the said authority. In this regard, the Chief Executive Officer of the Karnataka State Board of Wakfs, Bengaluru has filed a report in complaint No.LOK/BCD/4233/2015 as per (Annexure-J) stating that the property is belonging to the wakf Board and apparently, the petitioners have not been heard in the matter. The contention of the petitioners is that the property said to have been claimed by the respondent-wakf Board is a different property and not the property belonging to the petitioners and accordingly, sought interference of the court.
5. Heard Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.Ganesh S.Kalburgi, for the petitioners, Smt.Maya T.R., learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.4 to 7, Sri Anand Kumar, learned counsel on behalf of Sri.P.S.Malipatil, for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Gurubasava C. Nayak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Ramachandra K., for respondent No.8. -8-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7013 WP No. 208704 of 2020
6. Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners invited the attention of the court to the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Gulbarga, whereby the subject land in Sy.No.12 of the Hirapur village has been granted to the predecessor of the petitioners under section 5 of the Mysore Village Officers Abolition Act, 1961 (Annexure-A). He further submitted that the suit in O.S.No.37/1978 was filed by plaintiff-Haji Mohd. Hussain, (father of petitioner Nos.1 and 2) against the grantee-Mohd.Hafeez and the trial Court declared that the plaintiff in the said suit is the owner in possession of the land in question. Referring to the record of rights, learned Senior Counsel contended that the revenue records would establish that the land in question is belonging to the predecessors of the petitioners and at no point of time, it is identified as wakf property. He further submitted that the property in question has not been registered under the provisions of the Wakf Act, 1995 by the competent authority and in this regard, the procedure contemplated under the -9- NC: 2023:KHC-K:7013 WP No. 208704 of 2020 aforementioned Act is not followed to include the property in question as a wakf property and therefore, he contended that the petitioners herein are the owners in possession of the land in question and therefore, sought for interference of the Court.
7. To buttress his arguments relating to declaration of the property as wakf property, he refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Salem Muslim Burial Ground Protection Committee vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in AIR Online 2023, SC 440 and argued that unless, the procedure contemplated under the said Act is followed by the respondent Board, no publication could be issued through notification to identify the property as a wakf property and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court.
8. Per contra, Sri Anand Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 argued that the property has been declared as wakf property under Section 52 of the
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7013 WP No. 208704 of 2020 Wakf Act, 1954 as per the notification dated 04.02.1975 and therefore, he contended that since Sy.No.12 has been taken over by the competent authority in terms of the aforementioned notification and therefore, he contended that the writ petition does not survive for consideration.
9. Sri Gurubasava C.Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.8-complainant, before the Karnataka Lokayukta, submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable as the prayers made by the petitioners cannot be considered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
10. Smt.Maya T.R., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.4 to 7 submitted that the petitioners have filed O.S.No.15/2022 before the Wakf Tribunal at Kalaburagi claiming right in respect of land bearing Sy.No.14 and therefore, he submitted that the writ petition itself is not maintainable and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7013 WP No. 208704 of 2020
11. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the core question to be answered in this writ petition is whether the land bearing Sy.No.12 of Hirapur village, Kalaburagi taluk and district is belonging to the wakf Board or not.
12. It is not in dispute that the petitioners claim right over the land in Sy.No.12 of Hirapur village, as per the grant made under the provisions of the Mysore Village Officers Abolition Act, 1961 dated 12.08.1968 (Annexure- A). The subject land has been regranted in favour of Mohd.Hafiz S/o Mohd.Jaffar Seth Sandhi who claims to be the predecessor of title of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 herein. The suit in O.S.No.37/1978 is filed before the Civil Judge, Gulbarga, wherein the Trial Court after considering the material on record, passed decree in terms of the compromise petition, which reads as under:
"It is ordered and decreed in terms of compromise as follows:
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7013 WP No. 208704 of 2020
1) That the defendants admit that the suit land Sy.No.12 of Heerapur Taluk Gulbarga is in actual possession of the plaintiff as its owner since the year 1957. A decree for title and ownership of the plaintiff be granted.
2) That the defendant will not interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit survey No.12 to the extent of 9 acres 34 guntas towards West. A decree for perpetual injunction be granted in favor of the plaintiff.
3) The parties will bear their own costs."
13. It is also to be noted that the revenue records relating to Sy.No.12 establish that the said land has been identified as 'patta' in record of rights and name of the predecessor of the petitioners has been shown at column Nos.11 and 12 of the record of rights and the same would indicate that the name of Wakf Board has not been shown in the revenue records.
14. That apart, the portion of the land in Sy.No.12/1 has been acquired for the purpose of formation of Ring Road at Kalaburagi and as per common award (Annexure-E) passed by the competent authority
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7013 WP No. 208704 of 2020 shows the name of the owners as Haji Mohd. Yakub Haji and Mohd.Omer Khaji as per Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and the perusal of the same would indicate that even in the revenue records name of predecessor of title of plaintiff has been shown as per Annexure-E. However, the problem crop up only after issuance of notification by the respondent No.7 as per Annexure-F, wherein it is stated that the Sy.Nos.14, 12, 22, 18 and 35 of Hirapur village have been notified as per notification dated 04.02.1975 by the Karnataka Board of Wakfs. If at all the land bearing Sy.No.12 has been notified under the provisions of the Wakf Act, the condition precedent for issuance/creation of such wakf by dedication or usage shall be preceded by preparation of survey map by the competent authority and thereafter, a notification has to be issued by the Wakf Board and in furtherance of the same, the publication has to be made by the competent government. If such mandatory procedure is not followed by the wakf Board or by the respondent-
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7013 WP No. 208704 of 2020 Government, the same shall not be considered as a wakf property.
15. In this regard, the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of of Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy vs. Syed Jalal reported in (2017) 13 SCC 174 held at para-12 to 16 as follows:
"12. Section 4 of 1954 Act, empowered the State Government to appoint a State Commissioner, and as many Additional and Assistant Survey Commissioners of Wakf as may be necessary, by a notification in the Official Gazette for the purpose of making survey of wakf properties existing within the State. The Survey Commissioner after making a survey of wakf properties would submit his report to the State Government containing various particulars as mentioned in sub- sections (3) and (4) of Section 4 of the Act. Section 5 of 1954 Act mandated that on receipt of such report from Survey Commissioner made under sub-section (3) of Section 4, the State Government should forward a copy of the same to the Wakf
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7013 WP No. 208704 of 2020 Board. The Wakf Board would examine the report forwarded to it and publish in Official Gazette, the list of Wakfs in the State. For resolving the disputes regarding Wakfs, Section 6 of 1954 Act, provided jurisdictional Civil Court as a forum and decision of Civil Court in respect of such matters should be final. It was also clarified that no such suit should be entertained by the Civil Court, after the expiry of one year from the date of publication of the list of Wakfs as per sub-section (2) of Section 5. Sub-section (4) of Section 6 stated that the list of Wakfs published under sub-section (2) of Section 5 shall be final and conclusive unless such list is modified on the direction of the Civil Court.
13. The provisions found in Sections 5 and 6 of Wakf Act 1995 and Act of 1954 are almost akin to each other. However the change brought in by the Parliament under 1995 Act is that, in the case of dispute regarding Wakfs, the aggrieved party needs to approach the Wakf Tribunal constituted under Section 83 of the Waqf Act 1995 and consequently, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is taken away. Except the aforesaid change, no other substantial modification is
- 16 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7013 WP No. 208704 of 2020 found in those provisions. Section 7 of 1995 Act empowers the Tribunal to determine the disputes, regarding Auqaf/Wakfs, the particulars of which are specified therein.
14. Section 6 and Section 7 of Waqf Act 1995 bars jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try the civil suit in respect of questions specifically enumerated under those provisions. Section 85 of Waqf Act, 1995 further clarifies that no suit or other legal proceeding shall lie in any civil court, revenue court and any other authority in respect of any dispute, question or other matter relating to any wakf, wakf property or other matter which is required by or under this Act to be determined by a Tribunal.
15. The overall view of the aforementioned provisions contained in Wakf Act, 1954 and Waqf Act 1995 make it evident that even under 1954 Act, as in 1995 Act, the Survey Commissioners were appointed for the purpose of making survey of wakfs in State. The Survey Commissioner was duty bound to conduct the survey of wakfs in the State and after making such enquiry, as he might consider necessary, would submit his report in respect of Wakfs existing in the State to
- 17 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7013 WP No. 208704 of 2020 the State Government with necessary particulars. Copy of the said report would be forwarded by the State to the Wakf Board which in turn would examine the report by applying its mind and thereafter would publish the notification. Whereas under 1995 Act, the Wakf Board after examining the report forwards it back to Government within a period of 6 months for publication in the Official Gazette in the State. Pursuant thereto the State will publish the Gazette notification. The revenue authorities will consequently include the list of Auqaf properties while updating the revenue records under sub- section (3) of Section 5 of 1995 Act.
16. Thus it is amply clear that the conducting of survey by the Survey Commissioner and preparing a report and forwarding the same to the State or the Wakf Board precedes the final act of notifying such list in the official gazette by the State under 1995 Act, (it was by the Board under 1954 Act). As mentioned supra, the list would be prepared by the Survey Commissioner after making due enquiry and after valid survey as well as after due application of mind. The enquiry contemplated under sub-section (3)
- 18 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7013 WP No. 208704 of 2020 of Section 4 is not merely an informal enquiry but a formal enquiry to find out at the grass root level, as to whether the property is a Wakf Property or not. Thereafter the Wakf Board will once again examine the list sent to it with due application of it's mind and only thereafter the same will be sent to Government for notifying the same in the Gazette. Since the list is prepared and published in the official Gazette by following aforementioned procedure, there is no scope for the plaintiff to get the matter reopened by generating some sort of doubt about Survey Commissioner's report. Since the surveyor's report was required to be considered by the State Government as well as Wakf Board (as the case may be), prior to finalisation of the list of properties to be published in the Official Gazette, it was not open for the High Court to conclude that the Surveyor's report will have to be reconsidered. On the contrary, Surveyor's report merges with the Gazette Notification published under Section 5 of the Wakf Act.
- 19 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7013 WP No. 208704 of 2020
16. It is also to be noted that the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the Salem Muslim Burial Ground Protection Committee (supra) at para-31 to 36 held as under:
"31. The Wakf Act, 1954, which actually is relevant for our purpose, provides that, first, a preliminary survey of wakfs has to be conducted and the Survey Commission shall, after such inquiry as may be deemed necessary, submit its report to the State Government about certain factors enumerated therein whereupon the State Government by a notification in the official Gazette direct for a second survey to be conducted. Once the above procedure of survey is completed and the disputes arising thereto have been settled, on receipt of the report, the State Government shall forward it to the Wakf Board. The Wakf Board on examining the same shall publish the list of wakfs in existence with full particulars in the official Gazette as contemplated under Section 5 of the Act. Similar provisions exist under the Waqf Act, 1995.
32. A plain reading of the provisions of the above two Acts would reveal that the
- 20 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7013 WP No. 208704 of 2020 notification under Section 5 of both the Acts declaring the list of the wakfs shall only be published after completion of the process as laid down under Section 4 of the above Acts, which provides for two surveys, settlement of disputes arising thereto and the submission of the report to the State Government and to the Board. Therefore, conducting of the surveys before declaring a property a wakf property is a sine qua non. In the case at hand, there is no material or evidence on record that before issuing notification under Section 5 of the Wakf Act, 1954, any procedure or the survey was conducted as contemplated by Section 4 of the Act. In the absence of such a material, the mere issuance of the notification under Section 5 of the Act would not constitute a valid wakf in respect of the suit land. Therefore, the notification dated 29.04.1959 is not a conclusive proof of the fact that the suit land is a wakf property. It is for this reason probably that the appellant Committee had never pressed the said notification into service up till 1999.
33. In Tamil Nadu Wakf Board Vs. Hathija Ammal (Dead) by Lrs. Etc.6, it was observed
- 21 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7013 WP No. 208704 of 2020 that the Wakf Board should follow the procedure as required under Section 4, 5 and 6 or Section 27 of the Wakf Act before notifying the wakfs under Section 5 of the Act.
34. In Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy Vs. Syed Jalal7, it was observed as under:
"16. Thus, it is amply clear that the conducting of survey by the Survey Commissioner and preparing a report and forwarding the same to the State or the Wakf Board precedes the final act of notifying such list in the Official Gazette by the State under the 1995 Act (it was by the Board under the 1954 Act). As mentioned supra, the list would be AIR 2002 SC 402 7 (2017) 13 SCC 174 prepared by the Survey Commissioner after making due enquiry and after valid survey as well as after due application of mind. The enquiry contemplated under sub-section (3) of Section 4 is not merely an informal enquiry but a formal enquiry to find out at the grass root level, as to whether the property is a wakf property or not. Thereafter the Wakf Board will once again examine the list sent to it with due application of its mind and only thereafter the same will be sent to the
- 22 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7013 WP No. 208704 of 2020 Government for notifying the same in the Gazette...."
35. It may be noted that Wakf Board is a statutory authority under the Wakf Act. Therefore, the official Gazette is bound to carry any notification at the instance of the Wakf Board but nonetheless, the State Government is not bound by such a publication of the notification published in the official Gazette merely for the reason that it has been so published. In State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. A.P. State Wakf Board and Ors.8, this Court consisting of one of us (V. Ramasubramanian, J. as a Member) held that the publication of a notification in the official Gazette has a presumption of knowledge to the general public just like an advertisement published in the newspaper but such a notification published at the instance of the Wakf Board in the 2022 SCC OnLine SC 159 State Gazette is not binding upon the State Government. It means that the notification, if any, published in the official Gazette at the behest of the Wakf Act giving the lists of the wakfs is not a conclusive proof that a particular property is a wakf property especially, when no procedure as prescribed
- 23 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7013 WP No. 208704 of 2020 under Section 4 of the Wakf Act has been followed in issuing the same.
36. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find any substance in the argument that the suit land is or was a wakf property and as such would continue to be a wakf always. In the absence of any evidence of valid creation of a wakf in respect of the suit property, it cannot be recognized as a wakf so as to allow it to be continued as a wakf property irrespective of its use or disuse as a burial ground."
17. Following the declaration of law made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforementioned cases, it is clear that the conducting of the survey by the Survey Commissioner and thereafter, preparing a report and forwarding the same to the Government or to the wakf Board precedes the publication/notifying such property in the official gazette in terms of the provisions under the Wakf Act 1995 or under the provision of section 5 of the Wakf Act, 1954. The respondents have not produced any
- 24 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7013 WP No. 208704 of 2020 relevant material establishing/creation/dedication of Sy.No.12 which is impugned in this writ petition.
18. In that view of the matter, the fact that the respondents have not produced any material with regard to compliance of mandatory requirement under the aforementioned Act and further the respondent No.7 has stated that the land in question is agricultural - patta land and has arrived at a conclusion in its order dated 28.12.2012 (Annexure-G) that the parties have to establish their right over the property in question and therefore, I am of the view that, the impugned order passed by the respondent authorities are liable to be quashed.
19. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders passed by the respondent-authorities as per Annexure-J, Annexure-G dated 28.12.2012 and Annexure-F dated 18.08.2011 insofar as Sy.No.12 of Hirapur village, Kalaburagi taluk and district are hereby
- 25 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7013 WP No. 208704 of 2020 quashed. In the event, the respondent Wakf Board needs to establish its right in respect of land in question, the same has to be done in a manner known to law by establishing their right before the competent forum.
20. Having come to the conclusion that the respondent Wakf Board has not proved that the land bearing Sy.No.12 of Hirapur village, Kalaburagi taluk and district as wakf property, all consequent proceedings pursuant to issuance of notification dated 18.08.2011 (Annexure-F) shall held to be void.
In view of disposal of the main matter, pending applications do not survive for consideration and accordingly, the same stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE VNR List No.: 1 Sl.No.: 13