Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.23 seconds)
Sri. Akbar Basha Mujawar vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 February, 2024 cites

Asthan-E-Khadri Trust, Bangalore And ... vs Karnataka State Board Of Wakfs, ... on 8 February, 2000

2. Sri. B. Sharanabasva learned counsel for petitioner submitted that great grandson of Mujawar Badehuchhu Sab, who according to petitioner was notified Mutavalli of Huchh Saheb Ashoorkhana (Panje Masjid) (Sunni) at Krishnanagar of Sandur Taluk, Ballari. It was submitted that said WAQF was notified under Section 5(2) WAQF Act 1954 under notification gazetted on 17.10.1964. It was submitted that during his lifetime, said Mujawar continued Mujawarship, and thereafter, petitioner's grand father continued Mujawarship. It was -4- NC: 2024:KHC-D:4657 WP No. 105659 of 2018 submitted that since petitioner's father Mujawar Vali Basha had predeceased his grandfather, after death of petitioner's grandfather, petitioner had continued Mujawarship from year 2015. Such being case, without issuing any notice, or without any just cause, respondents passed order dated 23.07.2018 at Annexure-F assuming direct management of WAQF, and appointing Tahsildar, Sandur as administrator along with an advisory committee. Said order was passed under Section 65 of the WAQF Act 1995. It was submitted that impugned order was contrary to law declared by this Court in case of Asthan-E- Khadri Trust and Others Vs. Karnataka State Board of WAQFs and others reported in 2001 (2) KLJ 509, as well as being in violation of principles of natural justice, and therefore, sought for its quashing. It was submitted that petitioner, being great grandson of original Mutawalli, was an interested person falling within definition of Section 3(k)(ii) of WAQF Act and therefore, was an interested person. Besides same, this Court had held that power under Section 65 of WAQF Act was to be exercised in rarest of rare cases, and after recording satisfaction about two aspects, i) that there is no suitable person available for appointment of mutawalli or ii) where -5- NC: 2024:KHC-D:4657 WP No. 105659 of 2018 Board is satisfied that filling up of vacancy would be prejudicial to interest of WAQF, neither of which were absent in impugned order. On above grounds, learned counsel sought for allowing writ petition.
Karnataka High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 6 - H L Dattu - Full Document
1