SRI. LAXMI VENKATESH CREDIT CO-OP SOCIETY LTD. vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

- 1 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53745 CRP No. 211 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 211 OF 2019 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. D S MOINUDDIN AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O D.M. SHAFIULLA LATE R/O DHARMAPURA VILLAGE HIRIYUR TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT ALSO R/AT NO.1224, 1ST STAGE 3RD BLOCK HBR LAYOUT BENGALURU - 560 043. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MAHAMOOD PATEL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ENQUIRY OFFICER AND ADDL. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF WAQFS NO.6, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 052. R Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka

- 2 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53745 CRP No. 211 of 2019 2. THE WAQF OFFICER DISTRICT WAQF ADVISORY COMMITTEE CHITRADURGA - 577 501. 3. THE SECRETARY / MUTAVALLI JAMIA MASJID DHARMAPURA - 577 546. HIRIYUR TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA DISTRICT CHITRADURGA - 577 501. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HANEEF M H, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3; SRI. MOHAMMAD NIYAZ S, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SRI. BHOJEGOUDA T. KOLLER, AGA FOR R4)

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.83(9) OF THE WAQF ACT, 1995 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.01.2019 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.12/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, KARNATAKA WAQF TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU DIVISION, BENGALURU AND ALLOW THE PRAYERS OF THE PETITIONER MADE IN APPLICATION NO.12/2015 AND ETC.,

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

- 3 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53745 CRP No. 211 of 2019 ORAL ORDER Heard Mr. Mahamood Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mohammad Niyaz, learned counsel for the contesting respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. Bhojegouda T.Koller, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.4.

- 4 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53745 CRP No. 211 of 2019 pursuant to the said notification, all further proceedings need to be quashed. 4. The grounds on which the applicant approached the Waqf Tribunal are as under:-
The applicant is a bona fide purchaser of land in Sy.No.218, measuring 1 acre 15 guntas of Dharmpura Village, Hiriyur Taluk, Chitradurga District.
Applicant purchased the same through a registered sale deed dated 12.01.1998 for valuable consideration from its vendors, namely Sri Abdul Jaleel and others.
Ever since date of purchase, the applicant is in physical possession and enjoyment of the said land.
Mutation of revenue entries has taken place and from the year 1965-66 to 2015-16, the name of the applicant is standing in revenue records.

- 5 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53745 CRP No. 211 of 2019
Total extent of the land in Sy.No.218 measuring 3 acres 20 guntas, including 30 guntas of Phoot Kharab land.
Excluding the phoot kharab, the applicant purchased 1 acre 15 guntas of land in Sy.No.218 on the western side.
Khabrastan and Idgah are situated on the eastern side of the applicant’s property.
The property purchased by the applicant is not a Waqf property, but was under the ownership of Abdul Jaleel and others.
Khabrastan and Idgah are situated on the eastern portion of the land bearing Sy.No.218 measuring 1 acre 15 guntas.
In respect of the property purchased by the applicant from his vendors, namely Abdul Jaleel and others, there is no deed of Waqf, and there is no material on record that who is the dedicator of the land to the Waqf and purpose and object of dedication.

- 6 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53745 CRP No. 211 of 2019 5. It is further contended by the applicant that the District Waqf Officer, Chitradurga (respondent No.2), said to have reported the first respondent, namely Enquiry Officer, Karnataka State Board of Waqfs, Bengaluru, that land in Sy.No.218 of Dharmpura Village has been alienated and based on the said report, the first respondent issued Form Nos. 66 and 66A to the vendors of the applicant. 5(i) Applicant and his vendors, pursuant to the issues of said forms, submitted their reply on 29.04.2009 and 04.01.2011, respectively. 5(ii) First respondent, without holding proper enquiry in the procedure and manner prescribed under the Act, without conducting the spot inspection and without the power of delegation, ignored the objections filed by the applicant and his vendors and passed an order on 19.03.2010 and requisition dated 31.03.2010 in Enquiry Case No.ENQ/13/CTA/2009 vide Annexures-A and B to the application.

- 7 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53745 CRP No. 211 of 2019 5(iii) It is also contended by the applicant that those orders were not in the knowledge of the applicant. 5(iv) It is further contended that the enquiry was reserved for orders on 08.03.2010 and thereafter, there was no date fixed for further enquiry or pronouncement of orders. As such, the order passed by the first respondent is illegal. 5(v) The application averments would further reveal that on 04.08.2015, there was an attempt by respondent Nos.1 to 3 to take possession of the property purchased by the applicant from Abdul Jaleel and others forcibly and unlawfully. On noticing said attempt, the applicant immediately approached his advocate and obtained certified copies and thereafter, challenged the order. 5(vi) Applicant further contended that the order passed by the first respondent vide Annexure-A and requisition vide Annexure-B is totally illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in law.

- 8 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53745 CRP No. 211 of 2019 5(vii) The applicant also contended that the order at Annexure-A and requisition at Annexure-B are opposed to principles of natural justice as there was no proper notice of the proceedings, improper conduct of the proceedings for want of power of delegation and also not following the prescribed procedure under the statute. 5(viii) It is also contended that the Gazette notification dated 06.01.1965 is in respect of the land in Sy.No.208 of Jagalur Taluk and not arising under Sections 25 or 36 of the Waqf Act, 1995. 5(ix) Further, the applicant contended that under Rule 81 of the Karnataka Waqf Rules, 1997, there is a time limit prescribed in respect of the orders that would be passed under Sections 40(1), 40(2), 40(3), 51(2) and 54(3) of the Waqf Act, 1995 and as such, impugned order and requisition are opposed to the rules and as such, it is not enforceable. 5(x) Pursuant to the notice issued by the Tribunal, respondent Nos.1 to 3 appeared before the Court and

- 9 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53745 CRP No. 211 of 2019 written objections were filed opposing the application on the grounds and the relief. 5(xi) It is contended on behalf of the respondents that the application filed under Section 83(2) of the Waqf Act is barred by limitation and it cannot be entertained in view of Rule 81(2) of the Karnataka Waqf Rules, 1997, wherein the specified time limit is 30 days for challenging the order. 5(xii) It is also contended that the application is not maintainable in view of non-joinder of necessary parties and the application is filed with ill-motive to grab the Waqf property. 5(xiii) Further, respondents contended that land in Sy.No.218 measuring 2 acres 13 guntas of Dharmpura Village, Hiriyur Taluk, Chitradurga District, is admittedly a notified Waqf property vide Gazette notification dated 06.01.1965 as per Section 5(2) of the Waqf Act, 1954. The same finds place in Serial No.208 of Jagalur Taluk.

- 10 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53745 CRP No. 211 of 2019 5(xiv) Respondents also contended that the revenue records pertaining to the aforesaid properties, it has been specifically mentioned as Muslim burial ground and Waqf property. 5(xv) Pursuant to the report of the Waqf Officer, District Waqf Advisory Committee, Chitradurga, enquiry was held in a proper manner and after noticing that the vendors of the applicant had no right, title or interest to alienate the Waqf property in favour of the applicant, rightly passed the order at Annexure-A and requisition at Annexure-B and thus, sought for dismissal of the application. 5(xvi) Learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal, based on the rival contentions, raised a point for consideration as under: Whether the applicant has made out any justifiable grounds to interfere with impugned orders at Annexure “A” and “B”? 5(xvii) In order to prove that the Annexures-A and B are illegal, applicant got himself examined as PW1 and

- 11 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53745 CRP No. 211 of 2019 placed on record as many as 37 documents which were exhibited and marked as Exhibit P1 to P37, comprising of original sale deed dated 12.01.1998, mutation register, RTC extracts, Form No. 66, Form No.66A, objection statement, objections filed by applicant dated 04.01.2011, entire order sheet in the Enquiry case No.ENQ/13/CTA/2009, application for grant of certified copy, reply of the applicant dated 24.04.2009, Legal notice dated 22.12.2015, acknowledgments, copy of the reply dated 21.01.2016 received from the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga, Impugned order, and Letter dated 31.03.2010 addressed to Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga. 5(xviii) As against the material evidence placed on record by the applicant, Officer of the first respondent by name Mazharulla Khan has been examined as RW.1. On behalf of respondents, 12 documents were placed on record, which were exhibited and marked as Exs.R1 to R12, comprising of gazette notification, notice, certified

- 12 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53745 CRP No. 211 of 2019 copy of the mahazar, index of land, details of change of Mutawalli, certified copy of the particulars, RTC extracts, authorisation issued by Chief Executive Officer, certified copy of the statement of Mutawalli, certified copy of the report dated 08.04.1963 issued by Village Accountant, certified copy of the worksheet, certified copy of the mutation register extract. 5(xix) On conclusion of recording of evidence of the applicant as well as the respondent, learned Presiding Officer of the Waqf Tribunal, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and by impugned order, dismissed the application inter alia holding in paragraph Nos.30 to 39 as under:- "30. Admittedly neither Applicant nor his predecessors in title have challenged the Gazette notification at Ex.R-1. From the documents produced by the Respondents 1 to 3 couple with the evidence of RW-1 and the admission given by PW-1, it is proved that Sy.No. 218 measuring 2A- 30 G of Dharmpaura, including the property in question is a notified Waqf property.

- 13 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53745 CRP No. 211 of 2019 31. Now coming to the contention of the Applicant that the property in question is not registered as Waqf u/s 25 and 26 of Waqf Act, 1954 oг u/s 36 of Waqf Act, 1995 and as such the Board is not having jurisdiction u/s 52 of the Waqf Act, 1995. Admittedly Sy.No.218 measuring 3 A-20 G of Dharmpura which includes phoot kharab is notified Waqf property. Such being the case there is no necessity to once again register the same as Waqf. One of the object of notifying a property as a Waqf as per the provisions of the section 4 and 5 of the Waqf Act, 1995 or registering the same as Waqf u/s 36 of the Waqf Act, 1995 or under the previous Act is to give a notice to the general public that the properties are Waqf properties so as to caution them from dealing with such properties. 32. Therefore survey will be conducted to identify such Waqf properties and a list is prepared and submitted to the Government through the Waqf Board and after deciding the objections, if any, they will be notified in the Gazette. There may be cases where some of the Waqf property are left out of the survey or where some new properties are endowed as Waqf or assume the character of Waqf. Such Waqf property which are not notified in the Gazette are required to be registered as such u/s 36 of the Waqf Act, 1995.

- 14 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53745 CRP No. 211 of 2019 33. Such being the case the Board is having jurisdiction on the Waqf properties whether, notified in the Gazette or registered u/s 36 of the Waqf Act, 1995 as the case may be. Therefore the contention of the Applicant that the property in question is not registered u/s 25 and 26 of Waqf Act, 1954 or u/s 36 of Waqf Act, 1995 and therefore the Board is not having jurisdiction u/s 52 of the Waqf Act,1995 cannot be accepted. 34. Now coming to the case of the Applicant that no limitation is specified under the Act, or prescribed under the rules for challenging the order passed u/s 52 of Waqf Act, 1995. Though Applicant has taken up such a contention, at the same time he has pleaded that the enquiry Officer has failed to notify the date of order and as such he was not aware of the date of order and after the Deputy commissioner issued notice calling upon him to handover vacant possession of the property in question he came to know about the impugned order and therefore from the date of knowledge the Application is in time. 35. Admittedly, before initiating the enquiry proceedings Applicant and his vendors were issued with notice as per Ex.P-27 and 28. Applicant and ed? some of his vendors have appeared before the enquiry officer and Applicant has filed objections as per Ex.P 33. Subsequently he has sent one more set of objections dated 04.01.2011 as per

- 15 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53745 CRP No. 211 of 2019 Ex.P 30. As stated in Ex.P 30 along with it he has enclosed representation dated 29.04.2009 (in been kannada) said to have been given by some of his vendors and got it marked as A ExP 29. 36. In fact during his cross examination Applicant has admitted that he has participated in the enquiry. The order sheet at Ex.P 31 maintained at the enquiry disclose that on 07.11.2009 and 08.03.2010 Applicant and some of his vendors were present. After hearing them the enquiry officer has posted the case for orders. The order sheet disclose that he has prepared the enquiry report dated 19.03.2010 and submitted it for approval on 20.03.2010 and it is approved on 24.03.2010. Since the proceedings before enquiry officer are summary in nature, he has not recorded any evidence. Of course before the enquiry officer Applicant has not chosen to lead evidence It is not his case that even though he wanted to lead evidence opportunity was not given to him. The enquiry report at Ex.P.36 reveal that enquiry officer has passed the said order as per the delegation of powers by the Chief Executive officer, Karnataka State Board of Waqf, u/s 28 of the Waqf Act, 1995 vide order No. KTW/4/MYE/2006 dated 12.09.2006. Therefore it is not open to the Applicant to plead that the enquiry officer has no authority to pass the order in question.

- 16 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53745 CRP No. 211 of 2019 37. After conducting the enquiry the enquiry officer is required to submit to his report for approval. Only after the approval it assumes the character of final order. There is no provision u/s 52 of Waqf Act, to furnish a copy to the party affected by it. Moreover the order of the enquiry officer by itself is not executable and as such no limitation is Specified for challenging the said order. Only after the approved order of the enquiry officer is forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner with requisition to get the vacant possession of the Waqf property and in turn the Deputy Commissioner pass an order directing the person in possession of the property to deliver vacant possession to the Board within 30 days from the date of service of his order, the order passed by the enquiry officer becomes liable for challenge. Then u/s 52 (4) of Waqf Act, 1995. the person aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner is entitled to challenge it within 30 days from the service of notice by the Deputy Commissioner by way of an Appeal. 38. Applicant has not produced the notice issued by Deputy Commissioner calling upon him to handover vacant possession of property in question to the Board. However after receipt of the said notice, and filing the present Application he has chosen to issue legal notice dated 22.12.2015 as per Ex.P.34 to the Deputy Commissioner At

- 17 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53745 CRP No. 211 of 2019 Para 4 of Ex.P.34 there is reference to the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in No. LNDCR/152/14-15 dated 10.07.2015. 39. Applicant has filed the present Application on 23.11.2015 i.e. 130 days after the order dated 10.07.2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner. Applicant has also not pleaded on what date the said notice was served on him. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 have also not produced any document to show the date of service of notice by the Deputy Commissioner regarding the order LNDCR/152/14- 15 dated 10.07.2015 on the Applicant. Under the said circumstances. I hold that the present petition is filed within the limitation specified 52 (4) Waqf Act, 1995. However instead of filing Appeal he has filed Application and therefore the format is not correct." 6. Being aggrieved by the same, the applicant has filed the present revision petition on the following grounds:-
Section 52 (1) of the Waqf Act, 1995, cannot be invoked in respect of any immovable property which has not been entered as such in the Register of Waqfs maintained under Section 36 of the Waqf Act, 1995. Though there is no evidence on record to that effect before the Court below, the Court below has failed to take note of this important aspect of the matter.

- 18 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53745 CRP No. 211 of 2019
Section 52(1) of the Waqf Act, 1995, provides for holding inquiry in such manner as may be prescribed, but no inquiry was held by the 1# Respondent before passing its order at Exhibit P-36. The RW-1 admits in his cross examination that no witnesses are examined in the enquiry proceedings before the 1 Respondent-Board; but the Court below has failed to take note of this important aspect of the matter.
The Court below has failed to take note and has failed to discuss the admissions made by the RW-1 in the impugned order.
The Court below has failed to take note of the fact that the 1 Respondent has no jurisdiction to pass the Order at Exhibit P- 36 or the Requisition at Exhibit P-37.
The Court below has failed to take note of the facts that, in the light of the admissions of the RW-1, the entry at Sl.No.208 of the Exhibit R-1 is invalid.
The findings of the Court below on the point of Section 4 and 5 of the Waqf Act, 1995 and on the point of Section 36 of the Waqf Act, 1995 are illegal and not sustainable either in law or on facts.
The Court below has failed to take note of the fact that the Respondent No.1 has marked and sent the copies of Exhibit P- 37 Requisition dated 31/3/2010 to the Respondent No.2, 3 and 4, but he has deliberately and intentionally avoided to mark or send a copy of the same to the Petitioner. Hence, the 1" Respondent has kept the Petitioner in dark about the passing of its Order at Exhibit P-36 and its Requisition at Exhibit P-37.
The Court below ans failed to take note of the fact about the jurisdiction of the 1ª Respondent for passing the Order at Exhibit P-36 and requisition at Exhibit-P-37

- 19 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53745 CRP No. 211 of 2019
The Court below has failed to take note of the facts that, Section 52 (1) of the Waqf Act, 1995 is not dealing with the Notification which is arising under Section 4 of the Waqf Act, 1995 or under Section 4 of the Waqf Act, 1954. But, the provision under Section 52 (1) of the Waqf Act, 1995 specifically deals with the registration of the property as per Section 36 of the Waqf Act, 1995. So, the findings of the Court below on the said point is opposed to law.
The Court below has not appreciated the grounds of the Petitioner's case.
The Court below is wrong in holding that, the order of the 4th Respondent-Deputy Commissioner dated 10/7/2015 as an order under the provisions of Section 52, of the Waqf Act, 1995.
The Court below has not given specific findings on the documents of the Petitioner which are at Exhibit P-1 to P-37.
Exhibit P-29 is the Reply/Objections of the Petitioner's Vendors, but the Court below has wrongly held that the Vendors of the Petitioners have not filed objections in the Enquiry proceedings before the 1 Respondent.
The impugned order suffers from legal infirmity.
The impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable either in law or on facts. 7. Sri Mahamood Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, contended that as per Section 3(s) of the Waqf Act, the notification is invalid. He further pointed out that to

- 20 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53745 CRP No. 211 of 2019 consider the land in Sy.No.218 of Dharmapura village, Hiriyur Taluk, Chitradurga, as a Waqf property, there is no Waqf deed. There is no dedicator who dedicated the land to the Waqfs and the nature and object of dedication is also not forthcoming. 7(i) The sale deed executed by Abdul Jaleel and others in favour of the applicant would make it clear that what has been purchased by the applicant is the western half of the land in Sy.No.218 measuring 1 acre 15 guntas excluding the 20 guntas of kharab land on the eastern portion of the land in No.218 and thus, there is a clear demarcation of the property of the applicant and the Muslim burial ground and Idgah which are in existence in the eastern half of the land in No.218, which has not been considered by the respondents in the impugned order at Annexure-A and requisition at Annexure-B, resulting in miscarriage of justice.

- 21 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53745 CRP No. 211 of 2019 7(ii) He would further point out that it is for the first respondent to establish that the property is Waqf in the enquiry and mere submitting the notification vide Ex.R1 dated 06.01.1965 did not absolve the responsibility of the first respondent in proving that the property purchased by the applicant is that of the Waqf property. 7(iii) It is also the contention of Mr. Mahamood Patel that the report by the officer of the first respondent is not sacrosanct and proper enquiry, as is contemplated in the Waqf Act, has not been carried out before passing the impugned order, resulting in invalidity of Annexures-A and B and thus, sought for allowing the revision petition. 7(iv) He pointed out that the following admissions (hereinafter referred to as ‘said admissions’) were made in the cross-examination of RW.1 and in the teeth of such admissions, the Tribunal ought not to have rejected the application filed by the applicant.

- 22 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53745 CRP No. 211 of 2019 Admissions found on record “For Cross examination witness recalled and duly sworn on: 17-07-2017 Cross Examination by Sri. MP, Adv Applicant 17. I am giving evidence on behalf of myself and Respondents No.1. I am not giving evidence on behalf of Respondents No 3 and 4. It is true that I have not filed objections to main application. In Ex.R-1 Sy.No.218 is noted at Sl.No.208. Since 36 years I am in the service of Karnataka Waqf Board 18. The extent of land mentioned in Gazette notification is 3 Acres 20 Guntas. Out of this 3 Acres 20 Guntas 30 Guntas Phot Karab. It is true that Respondent No.1 has initiated proceedings to remove Applicant from the property in question. The order is passed for removing Applicant from 1 Acre 15 Guntas. It is true that I am relaying upon the Gazette notification. 19. On the basis of Survey report conducted during the year 1963 and the statement of D.M. Safiulla the then Muthavalli of Waqf Institution the entry is made in Gazette Notification. We are having Survey report. We have produced the same to the Court. Ex.R-6 is the Survey Report. Through the Waqf Inspector the Survey commissioner will survey the Waqf property. It is not correct to suggest that Ex.R-6 is not the Survey Report.

- 23 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53745 CRP No. 211 of 2019 20. I do not know who was the Waqf Inspector during 1963. I have verified the records before giving evidence. Since the document contains only the sign but not the name I could not make out who was the Waqf Inspector during the year 1963. I did not try to find his name. It is not correct to suggest that Ex.R-6 is not prepared as per Section 4 of the Waqf Act, 1954. 21. D.M. Safiulla referred to in Ex.R-6 is not the owner of Sy. No.218, measuring 3 Acres 20 Guntas. He was the notified Muthavalli. Waqf board has not issued appointment order to D.M. Safiulla as Muthavalli. There is not Waqf Deed in respect of land in Sy.No.218 measuring 3 Acres 20 Guntas. The said property entered in the entered in the Kitabul Aukaf Separate registration certificate is not issued. The entries made in Kitabul Aukaf during the year 1965. Entries is made as per notification dated 06.01.1965. I do not know the date and month on which the said entry is made in Kitabul Aukaf. We have not produced the extract of Kitabul Aukaf. We have not impediment to produce the same to the Court. 22. Sy.No.218, 3 Acres 20 Guntas originally belongs to Karnataka State Board of Waqf. Waqf Board has not purchased the said property. The Jamath of Dharmapura Village had gifted said property for the purpose of Burial ground. There is

- 24 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53745 CRP No. 211 of 2019 no Gift Deed by Jamath in favour of Waqf Board. We are not having any documents to show that Jamath was the owner of the said property. The said Jamath was not recognized by the Waqf Board. Based on Gazette notification and Survey report entry is made in the Kitabul Aukaf. Before making entry in the Kitabul Aukaf the revenue records are not verified. 23. We have given application to enter the name of the Waqf Institution in the Revenue Records. We are having records to show the same. We have no impediment to produce the same to the Court. It is true that in Ex.R-2 the survey number and extent are not mentioned. It is true that in Ex.R-2 the property is not described as Idgah and Burial ground. Ex.R-2 is signed by the Waqf Inspector in the year 1963, I do not know his name The property in question became Waqf during the year 1965. It is not correct to suggest that Sy.No.218 is an agricultural land. 24. The Waqf board had also maintained the records of Burial grounds. No records are maintained regarding the number of Burials made in the Burial ground. Burial grounds are exempted from paying taxes, hence we have not made land revenue to the property in question. There is notification regarding exemption of paying taxes for

- 25 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53745 CRP No. 211 of 2019 burial ground. We do not have any impediment to produce the same to the Court. 25. D.M. Safiulla has not paid any remuneration for being a notified Muthavalli. At this stage further cross examination is deferred at the request of counsel for Applicant. For further Cross examination witness recalled and duly sworn on: 04-12-2017 Further Cross Examination by Sri. MP, Advocate for Applicant 26. We have not challenged the mutation entries starting from 1965-66 to 2015-16. Suit Schedule Property is registered as per Section 25 of Waqf Act, 1954. We are having documents to that effect. We have already produced the said document to the Court. It is not correct to suggest that we have not produced the said document to the Court. During 2006 or 2011 application is made to make out Katha in the name of Board. We are having document to evidence the same. We have no impediment to produce the same to the Court. It is not correct to suggest that we have not made such application during 2006 or 2011. 27. We have not given application to Sub-Registrar for creating charge in the Encumbrance over the property. It is true that there are Government

- 26 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53745 CRP No. 211 of 2019 grants for Edga and Burial grounds in State of Karnataka. We are having documents for getting grants to the notified property in question. Such grants will not be given every year but periodically. It is true to suggest that every year Government will be give grants. We have received grants since 1965. We are having documents to show utilization of the grants. We have not impediment to produce the same to the Court. It is not correct to suggest that we have not received any grants to the property in dispute. 28. Before conducting the Survey dated 24.02.2007 notice was issued to Applicant. We are having document to evidence the same. It is not correct to suggest that no such notice was given to the Applicant and no survey was conducted dated 24.02.2007. We are having the said survey report and we have no impediment to produce the same to the Court. In the said survey report it is stated that 1 Acres 15 Guntas is illegally sold. In the enquiry before passing the impugned order no witnesses are examined. Question: The impugned order is not placed before the board and no resolution is passed accepting the same by the Board? Answer: According to me the said procedure is not required.

- 27 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53745 CRP No. 211 of 2019 29. It is not correct to suggest that the enquiry officer has no authority to pass impugned order. The impugned order is communicated to the Applicant. The documents to that effect may be available with the head office. It is not correct to suggest that the impugned order is not communicated to the Applicant. 30. The Deputy Commissioner has passed order under Section 52. The Deputy Commissioner has passed orders during 2015. We are ready to produce the same to the Court. It is not correct to suggest that the Deputy Commissioner has not passed any such order. 31. I do not know how many children Abdul Jaleel is having, whose sons are shown to be his LRs i.e., Respondents in the impugned order. For the purpose of identification the impugned order is marked as Ex.P-36 and the letter dated 31.03.2010 addressed to Deputy Commissioner is marked os Ex.P-37. In respect of the enquiry the concerned Waqf Officer has given the complaint in writing. I do not know whether the enquiry officer has furnished the copy of the said complaint to the Applicant. We are having copy of the same. I have no impediment to produce the same to the Court. It is not correct to suggest that during the enquiry no documents are marked. It is not correct to suggest that we have taken a false stand in our objections.

- 28 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53745 CRP No. 211 of 2019 It is not correct to suggest that my affidavit evidence is false. It is not correct to suggest that I have not given written complaint before Enquiry Officer as stated in my affidavit evidence. 32. It is not correct to suggest that Ex.R-4, 6, 9, 10 & 11 are in Modi Kannada and it is not possible to read it. I cannot say whether the counsel for Applicant is unable to cross examine on Ex.R-4, 6, 9, 10 & 11 till its typed copies are given. It is not correct to suggest that disputed property is not a Waqf property. It is not correct to suggest that the Respondent No.1 to 3 are not have any right, title and interest in the property in dispute. It is not correct to suggest that impugned order at Ex.P-36 is illegal. It is not correct to suggest that Applicant is not having any information regarding Ex.P-37 and behind his back the said letter sent to Deputy Commissioner. It is not correct to suggest that the copy of Ex.P-37 was not sent to the Applicant and I am giving false evidence on that aspect. The Head office may be having proof for having sent copy of Ex.P-37 to the Applicant. It may be produced to the Court. 33. It is not correct to suggest that Ex.P-36 is not pronounced in the open court. In Ex.P-36 there is not certificate to the effect that it is pronounced in the open court. It is not correct to suggest that Ex.P-36 is also not communicated to the Applicant.

- 29 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53745 CRP No. 211 of 2019 There is no impediment to produce document to show that Ex.P-36 is communicated to the Applicant. It is not correct to suggest that Ex.P-36 is passed behind the back of the Applicant. t is not correct to suggest that our alleged claim in the impugned order is illegal.” 7(v) He would further invite the attention of this Court to the following provisions of the Waqf Act namely Section 3(c), Section 23(3), Section 17(3) and Section 52(1) and contended that elements of Section 52(1) are not available in the case on hand, whereby the impugned order can be sustained. For ready reference, the aforesaid provisions are culled out hereunder:- "Section 3(c): Defines "Board" as a Waqf Board established under section 13(1) or (2), or a common Waqf Board established under section 106. Section 23. Appointment of Chief Executive Officer and his term of office and other conditions of service: 23(3) The Chief Executive Officer shall be ex officio Secretary of the Board and shall be under the administrative control of the Board.

- 30 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53745 CRP No. 211 of 2019 Section 17. Meetings of the Board 17(3): Subject to the provisions of this Act, all questions which come before any meeting of the Board shall be decided by a majority of votes of the members present, and in the case of equality of votes, the Chairperson or, in his absence, any other person presiding shall have a second or casting vote. Section 52. Recovery of 1 [waqf] property transferred in contravention of section 51.— (1) If the Board is satisfied, after making any inquiry in such manner as may be prescribed, that any immovable property of a 1 [waqf] entered as such in the register of 1 [waqf] maintained under section 36, has been transferred without the previous sanction of the Board in contravention of the provisions of section 51 4 [or section 56], it may send a requisition to the Collector within whose jurisdiction the property is situate to obtain and deliver possession of the property to it." 7(vi) He would also contend that the applicant is a bona fide purchaser for value, as the encumbrance certificate issued by the competent authority did not show as on the date of purchase, the suit property is a Waqf

- 31 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53745 CRP No. 211 of 2019 property. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be penalized for the lapses on the part of the statutory authorities. 7(vii) In support of his arguments, Sri Mahamood Patel, learned counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 21.04.2021 in the case of Karnataka State Board of Wakfs and Others v. State of Karnataka and others in Writ Appeal Nos.31367-71/2013 c/w Writ Appeal Nos.31356/2013 and 100094-97/2014. He invited the attention of the Court to paragraph Nos.26 to 33, which read as under:- "26. Section 3(r) of the Waqf Act provides for definition of Waqf. “Waqf” means a permanent dedication by any person, of any movable or immovable property for any purpose recognised by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable. In the instant case, there is nothing on record to show that there is a permanent dedication by any person for a definite purpose. Perusal of the record further indicates that the District Waqf Committee had been duly notified by the Tribunal and for the reasons best known to it, it did not contest the proceedings before the Tribunal and therefore, the contention raised by learned counsel appearing for

- 32 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53745 CRP No. 211 of 2019 the appellants cannot be accepted. Section 4 of the Waqf Act provides for preliminary survey. The same reads as under: “4. Preliminary survey of wakfs.— (1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint for the State a Survey Commissioner of Wakfs and as many Additional or Assistant Survey Commissioners of Wakfs as may be necessary for the purpose of making a survey of wakfs existing in the State at the date of the commencement of this Act. (1-A) Every State Government shall maintain a list of auqaf referred to in sub- section (1) and the survey of auqaf shall be completed within a period of one year from the date of commencement of Wakf (Amendment) Act, 2013, in case such survey was not done before the commencement of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 2013: Provided that where no Survey commissioner of Waqf has been appointed, a Survey Commissioner for auqaf shall be appointed within three months from the date of such commencement. (2) All Additional and Assistant Survey Commissioners of Wakfs shall perform their functions under this Act under the general supervision and control of the Survey Commissioner of Wakfs. (3) The Survey Commissioner shall, after making such inquiry as he may consider necessary, submit his report, in respect of wakfs existing at the date of the commencement of this Act in the State or any part thereof, to the State Government containing the following particulars, namely:—

- 33 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53745 CRP No. 211 of 2019 (a) the number of wakfs in the State showing the Shia wakfs and Sunni wakfs separately; (b) the nature and objects of each wakf; (c) the gross income of the property comprised in each wakf; (d) the amount of land revenue, cesses, rates and taxes payable in respect of each wakf; (e) the expenses incurred in the realisation of the income and the pay or other remuneration of the mutawalli of each wakf; and (f) such other particulars relating to each wakf as may be prescribed. (4) The Survey Commissioner shall, while making any inquiry, have the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), in respect of the following matters, namely:— (a) summoning and examining any witness; (b) requiring the discovery and production of any document; (c) requisitioning any public record from any court or office; (d) issuing commissions for the examination of any witness or accounts; (e) making any local inspection or local investigation; (f) such other matters as may be prescribed. (5) If, during any such inquiry, any dispute arises as to whether a particular wakf is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf and there are clear indications in the deed of wakf as to its nature, the dispute shall be decided on the basis of such deed. (6) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct the Survey Commissioner to make a second or subsequent survey of wakf properties in the

- 34 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53745 CRP No. 211 of 2019 State and the provisions of sub-sections (2), (3), (4) and (5) shall apply to such survey as they apply to a survey directed under sub- section (1): Provided that no such second or subsequent survey shall be made until the expiry of a period of twenty years from the date on which the report in relation to the immediately previous survey was submitted under subsection (3). Provided further that the waqf properties already notified shall not be reviewed again in subsequent survey except where the status of such property has been changed in accordance with the provisions of any law.” (Emphasis supplied by us) 27. Section 4(3) of the Waqf Act contemplates about inquiry. The Survey Commissioner, after conducting inquiry, shall file a report to the Government about the particulars of the property, purpose and such other information relating to dispute. Section 4(4) of the Waqf Act deals with the applicability of the Code of Civil Procedure while making inquiry by the Survey Commissioner. Section 5 of the said Act envisages about the filing of report by the Survey Commissioner under section 4(3) to the Government for appropriate decision. Rule 4 of the Karnataka Waqf Rules provides for submission of report by the Survey Commissioner to the Government and it shall be in Form No.1. No arguments were addressed by the

- 35 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53745 CRP No. 211 of 2019 learned counsel appearing for the appellants to establish that such an inquiry was conducted by the Survey Commissioner before notifying the subject land as Waqf property. If at all any such inquiry was conducted by the Survey Commissioner as per Section 4(3) of Waqf Act, such authorities ought to have heard such persons in whose possession the land lay. Nothing is forthcoming during the hearing of the learned counsel for the parties in these appeals. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BOARD OF MUSLIM WAKFS, RAJASTHAN v. RADHA KISHAN AND OTHERS reported in (1979)2 SCC 468 had an occasion to discuss the scheme of Waqf Act, particularly, with reference to Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Waqf Act. The observations made at paragraphs 21 to 28 of the judgment, read as follows: “21. The Wakf Act, 1954 does, in our opinion, furnish a complete machinery for the better administration and supervision of wakfs. Though sub-s. (3) of s. 4 of the Act is rather unhappily worded, it is not a sound principle of construction to interpret expressions used in one Act with reference to their use in another Act, and decisions rendered with reference to construction of one Act cannot apply with reference to the provisions of another Act, unless the two Acts are in pari materia. Further, when there is no ambiguity in the statute, it may not be permissible to refer to, for purposes of its construction, any previous legislation or decisions rendered therein.

- 36 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53745 CRP No. 211 of 2019 22. The questions that fall for determination upon the appeal are two; first, whether a Commissioner of Wakfs appointed under sub-s. (1) of s. 4 of the Wakf Act, 1954, has the jurisdiction under sub s. (3) of s. 4 to enquire whether a certain property is wakf property or not when such a dispute raised by a stranger to the wakf and second, if so, whether the failure of such a person to institute a suit in a civil court of competent jurisdiction for decision of such question within a period of one year, as provided for under sub-s. (1) of s. 6, makes the inclusion of such property in the list of wakfs published by the Board under sub-s.(2) of s. 5 of the Act final and conclusive under sub- s. (4) of s. 6 22A. It is needless to stress that the whole purpose of the survey of wakfs by the Commissioner of Wakfs under sub-s. (1) of s. 4 is to inform the Board of Wakfs, as to the existence of the existing wakfs in a State, in order that all such wakfs should be brought under the supervision and control of the Board of Wakfs. 23. While the High Court was, in our view, right in determining the scope of sub- s. (1) of s. 6 of the Act, it was clearly in error in cur tailing the ambit and scope of an enquiry by the Commissioner of Wakfs under sub-s. (3) of s. 4 and that by the Board of Wakfs under s. 27 of the. Act. 24. In dealing with the scope of enquiry by the Commissioner of Wakfs: under sub-s. (3) of s. 4, the High Court adverts to the,. heading of Chapter II and the marginal note of sub-s. (1) of s. 4. It observes: "The heading of section 4 with which this chapter started was 'Preliminary survey of wakfs'. The use of the word

- 37 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53745 CRP No. 211 of 2019 'Preliminary' in the heading is one of significance. The weight of authority is in favour of the view that the marginal note upended to a section cannot be used for construing the section. Lord Macnaghten in Balraj Kunwar v. Jagatpal Singh(1) considered it well settled that marginal notes cannot be referred to for the purposes of construction. This Court after referring to the above case with approval, said in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Ahmedbhai Umedbhai Umarbhai & Co.: "Marginal notes in an Indian statute, as in an Act of Parliament, cannot be referred to for the purpose of construe the statute." As explained by Lord Macnaghten in the Privy Council, marginal notes are not part of an Act of Parliament. 25. The very heading of Chapter II and the caption to s. 4 no doubt suggest that the Commissioner makes only a preliminary survey regarding existing wakfs and the list of wakfs prepared by him is published by the Board and neither the Commissioner nor the Board is required to make any enquiry regarding, the character of the property. That is to say, the making of survey is only an administrative act and not a quasi- judicial act. But, on a closer examination, it is, clear that while making a survey of the existing wakfs in a State under sub-s. (1) of 5. 4, the Commissioner is required by sub-s. (3) to submit a report to the State Government in regard to the serval matters referred to in cls. (a) to (f) thereof. There may be a dispute as between the Board, the mutawalli or a person interested in the wakf, as regards (a) the existence of a wakf, i.e.

- 38 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53745 CRP No. 211 of 2019 whether a particular property is wakf property, (b) whether it is a Shia wakf or a Sunni wakf, (c) extent of the property attached to the wakf, (d) the nature and object of the wakf, etc. While making such an enquiry, the Commissioner is invested by sub-s. (4) with the powers vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in respect of the summoning and examining of any witness, requiring the discovery and production of any document, requisitioning any public record from any court or office, issuing commissions for the examination of any witness or accounts, making any local inspection or local investigation etc. In view of these comprehensive provisions, it is not disputed before us that the enquiry that the Commissioner makes for the purpose of submission of his report under sub-s. (3)? while making a survey of existing wakfs in the Estate under sub-s. (1), is not purely of an administration nature but partakes of a quasi-judicial in character, in respect of the persons falling within the scope of sub-s. (1) of s. 6. 26. It would be illogical to hold that while making a survey of wakf properties existing in the State a Commissioner of Wakfs appointed by the State Government under sub-s. (1) of s. 4, should have no power to enquire whether a particular property is wakf property or not. If we may refer to sub-s. (1) of s. 4, so far as material, it reads: "The State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, appoint for the State a Commissioner of Wakfs... for the purpose of making a survey of wakf properties existing in the State at the date of the commencement of this Act."

- 39 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53745 CRP No. 211 of 2019 It will be clear that the words "for the purpose of making a survey of wakf properties" is a key to the construction of the section The ordinary meaning of the word "survey", as given in the Random House Dictionary of English Language, is 'to take a general or comprehensive view of or appraise, as a situation'. If the Commissioner of Wakfs has the power to make a survey, it is but implicit that in the exercise of such power he should enquire whether a wakf exists. The making o such an enquiry is a necessary concomitant of the power to survey. The High Court was clearly in error in observing: "Except sub-section (5) there is nothing in section 4 or in the rules made by the State to show that the Commissioner is empowered to adjudicate on a question, if one arises, whether a particular property is a wakf property or not." 27. We are of the opinion that the power of the Commissioner to survey wakf properties under sub-s. (1) or to enquire and investigate into the several matters set out in cls. (e) to (f) of sub-s. (3) cannot be curtailed by taking recourse to Sub-5. (5). The High Court was wholly wrong in understanding the true implication of sub-s. (5) of s. 4. It only lays down that if, during any such enquiry, any dispute arises as to whether a particular wakf is a Shia wakf or a Sunni wakf, and there are clear indications in the deed of wakf as to its nature, the dispute shall be decided on the basis of such deed. It, therefore, makes the wakf deed conclusive as to the nature of the wakf, i.e. whether it is a Shia or a Sunni wakf. In our view, sub s.(5) of s. 4 cannot be projected into sub-s. (1) for determining the question whether a certain property is a wakf property or not. Nor does it enter into an enquiry as to several of the matters

- 40 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53745 CRP No. 211 of 2019 adverted into some of the clause of sub s. (3). 28. The matter can also be viewed from another angle. If sections 4, 5 and 6 are parts of an integrated scheme, as asserted, then it follows as a necessary corollary that the enquiry envisaged by sub-sections (1) and (3) of s. 4 must cover the field defined by sub-s. (1) of s. 6. The opening words of the section are: "If any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under sub section (2) of section 5 is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf .... " They clearly envisage that the enquiry by the Commissioner is not con fined to the question as to whether a particular wakf is Shia wakf or Sunni wakf. It may also embrace within itself a dispute as to whether a wakf exists. This is a conduction which sub-s. (1) of s.4 must, in its context and setting, bear. Any other construction would, indeed, make the Act unworkable.” 28. We have carefully considered the law declared by this Court in the case of HAZRATH ATTULLA SHAH DHARGAH (supra), particularly, paragraph 7 of the judgment. The principle laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case was relating to proviso to Section 6(1) of the Waqf Act, so also, right of challenge to waqf property within one year from the date of publication of the list of waqf under Section 5(2) of the said Act. In the instant case, there is no quarrel with regard to

- 41 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53745 CRP No. 211 of 2019 notifying the land in question as waqf property by the Waqf Board. However, no material is produced by the appellant to establish the fact that the contesting respondents were heard before notifying the lands in question as a waqf property and therefore, reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to aforementioned case cannot be made applicable to the case on hand. 29. Insofar as law declared by this Court in KARNATAKA BOARD OF WAKF BANGALORE (supra), this Court set aside the conferment of occupancy right in respect of fourth respondent therein and held that the subject land was a waqf property. The facts of the said case is different from the facts of the case on hand, as the Commissioner for Madras, way back in 1861 itself registered the lands in favour of the predecessors of the contesting respondents and the said aspect of the matter was rightly considered by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 30. We have also considered the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SYED MOHD. SALIE LABBAI (supra) and in the case of LANCO HILLS TECHNOLOGY PARK PRIVATE LIMITED. The law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above said cases is, once a Waqf, always a Waqf. The factual aspects of the

- 42 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53745 CRP No. 211 of 2019 present case would indicate that even prior to the issuance of the notification in the year 1964 by the respondent-Board notifying the lands as Waqf property, the then Commissioner for Madras by his order passed during 1861, granted occupancy right in favour of the predecessors of the contesting respondents by issuing patta No.2011 and 2695, and therefore, prior to notifying the subject land as the waqf property, no notice or fair opportunity of hearing was given to the contesting respondents and the Waqf Board unilaterally passed an official gazette notifying the subject land as waqf property. Therefore, the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned cases is also not sapplicable to the case on hand. 31. It is also relevant to mention that Section 4(2)(b) of Inams Aboliton Act provides that all rights, title and interest of the inamadar ceased and vested absolutely in the State Government. Section 5(2) of the Inams Abolition Act provides that where the inamdar is a Religious Institution, a person rendering service in such institution and personally cultivating the land for a continuous period not less than three years prior to 01st March, 1974 shall be entitled to be registered as an occupant of such land. Section 5(3) of the Inams Abolition Act provides that every inamdar including the holder of a minor inam shall be entitled to be registered as an occupant of all lands

- 43 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53745 CRP No. 211 of 2019 which was cultivating personally, immediately before 01st March, 1974. Perusal of the record would indicate that the land being an inam land stood vested in the State Government. The District Waqf Committee claimed occupancy by filing Form No.1 in the year 1982, and it was rejected by the Land Tribunal earlier and thereafter, the said order was questioned in Writ Petition No.40029 of 1993 before this Court and pursuant to the plea made by the writ petitioner (District Waqf Committee), the said Writ Petition came to be dismissed as withdrawn on 11th October, 2001. The said order has reached finality and the same is binding on the parties. In these appeals, appellant No.2 is the District Waqf Advisory Committee and appellant No.3 is the Managing Committee of Pinjaravadi Panje Ashoor Khana, a Committee constituted under Section 18 of the Waqf Act. These two appellants cannot urge that the said finding made by the Land Tribunal earlier is not binding on them. 32. We have also carefully considered the finding recorded by the Land Tribunal. The same reads as hereunder: "ಈಪಕರಣದ ಅ ಾರಾದೕ.ಮುಾ ಉಾ ೇ ಇವರುತಹೕಾ ರರು, ಬ"ಾ#$ ಇವ$%ೆ&'ಾಂಕ: ೨೪.೦೮.೨೦೧೦ರಂದುಸ /ದ0ೋ$0ೆಅಯ ಸ3ೆ .ನಂ.೧೮೪ಮತು5 ಸ.ನಂ.೧೯೨. 7ಾಗೂಸ.ನಂ.೮೬೮ಜ;ೕನುಗಳಇ'ಾಂ ಾರಾದ ತಮಗಳ ಾ=>ೕ'ಾನುಭವದ ದು , ಾ ವ@ ೋA, ಬ"ಾ#$ ಇವರ 7ೆಸರನುB

- 44 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53745 CRP No. 211 of 2019 ಪಹCಯ DಾವE ೇ 'ೋFೕG Hೕಡ ೇ JKಾರLೆ Mಾಡ ೇ 0ಾನೂನು ಾNೕರ3ಾO ನಮೂದು MಾPರುವEದು ಕ'ಾಟಕ ಭೂಕಂ ಾಯ 0ಾR ಉಲ ಂಘ'ೆ MಾPದಂUೆಆO ೆ. ಆದ$ಂದಸದ$ ಜ;ೕನುಗಳನುB ಸWಳಪ$ೕಲ'ೆMಾP ಅಕX ಪಕX ಪYಾZ ಾರರನುB JKಾರLೆMಾP 7ೇ[0ೆಗಳನುB ಪ\ೆದುP/]^ ವ_X ೋA ಎಂದು ನಮೂದು ಆOರುವEದನುB Uೆ%ೆದು7ಾa ತನB ಇತೆ 7ೆಸರನುB ನಮೂ&ಸಲು 0ೋ$ದನ=ಯಕಂ ಾಯಪ$Jೕ@ಕರು. ಬ"ಾ#$ ಇವರುJKಾರLೆMಾP 7ೇ[0ೆಗಳನುB ಪ\ೆ&ದು , ಸದ$ ಜ;ೕHನ ಅಕXಪಕXದ ಪYಾZ ಾರರ7ೇ[0ೆಯ ಈ 'ಾಲುX ಜನ ಇ'ಾಂ ಾರರುbೕಾXC/ದJ/5ೕಣದ ಇರುವಂUೆ ಾಗುMಾಡುc5 ಾ ೆ. 7ಾಗೂ ಅವರ ಅವರ ಾ=>ೕ'ಾನುಭವದ ರುತ5 ೆಂದು 7ೇ[0ೆ 7ಾಗೂ ವರ&ಗಳನುB 7ಾಜರುಪP/ರುUಾ5ೆ. ಈ ದೃeೕಕೃತ ನಕಲುಗಳf Hgಾ'ೆ h-೧, h-೨ ರ Uೋ$ಸಾO ೆ." 33. The Tribunal has also considered the fact that the Waqf Committee had filed Form No.7 and Form No.1 before the Additional Land Tribunal in LRM Case No.852/1980-81 dated 17th March, 1982. In the order dated 17th March, 1982, the Land Tribunal held as follows: ”In view of the above, the Land Tribunal is of the opinion that the Institution has no locus standi to claim regrant of inam lands as inamdar, under the Act. The Instituiton also cannot claim the suit land as tenant, it being an incorporate Body that the applications of the Institution is liable to be rejected. The application of the Pinjarwadi Ashur Khana Sunni, Bellary filed through Inspector-cum- Auditor, District Waqf Committee, Bellary is hereby rejected.”

- 45 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53745 CRP No. 211 of 2019 7(viii) He also invited the attention of this Court to yet another Division Bench ruling of this Court reported in ILR 1995 Karnataka 2560 in the case of Karnataka Wakf Board v. State of Karnataka and invited the attention of this Court to paragraph No.20, which reads as under: "20. The defendant Nos. 1, 2, 2A and 2B have merely relied upon the publication made under Section 5 of the Wakf Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) in order to prove their title to the suit property. It does not help the defendants in any way because under Section 5 of the Act, only a list of existing wakfs is prepared by the Wakf Board. After the necessary enquiry by the Commissioner, that list is published by the State Government. Therefore, it is for the defendants to prove that a wakf in respect of the suit schedule property existed. As seen from the above discussion of the evidence placed on record, the defendants have not placed any satisfactory evidence to prove the same. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the first respondent that the list published by the first defendant under Section 5 of the Act declaring the suit property as a ‘Wakf Property’ is not legal and is not binding on the respondent because, there is no enquiry held by the Wakf Commissioner as reuired under

- 46 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53745 CRP No. 211 of 2019 Section 4(3) of the Act. He submitted that no notice was issued to the plaintiff before any such enquiry and the list has been published under Section 5 of the Act behind the back of the plaintiff. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the appellant argued that there has been a proper enquiry and since the plaintiff is the State Government, it has published the Gazette Notification publishing the list of wakfs under Section 5 of the Act and therefore the plaintiff cannot contend that it has no notice of it. This argument cannot be accepted because the enquiry contemplated under Section 4(3) of the Act is independent of the publication of the list of wakfs under Section 5 of the Act. The enquiry contemplated is by the Commissioner of Wakfs whereas the publication of the list under Section 5 of the Act is by the Wakf Board. Holding of enquiry, as submitted by the learned Counsel for the first respondent necessarily implies issuing of notice to all the parties interested. Section 4(3) of the Act gives an indication regarding the nature of the enquiry to be held under Section 4(3) of the Act. It provides that the Commissioner shall, while making an enquiry, have the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court in respect of summoning and examining witnesses, production of documents, requisitioning of public records etc. Therefore, what is contemplated under Section 4(3) of the Act is a full-fledged enquiry to enable

- 47 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53745 CRP No. 211 of 2019 the Commissioner to determine whether a particular property is existing wakf and make a report to the Wakf Board to enable it to publish a list of such wakfs. In this regard, the learned Counsel of the appellant relied upon a decision reported in The Board of Muslim Wakf, Rajasthan v. Radhakishan, (1979) 2 SCC 468 : AIR 1979 SC 289. It is not possible to know how this decision is helpful to the appellant's contention. It has been held therein that the Wakf Commissioner has the power to enquire whether a certain property is a wakf property or not. Thus, in view of this legal position, when the plaintiff has taken a contention that there is no enquiry held as required under Section 4(3) of the Act and consequently the list published under Section 5 of the Act is not legal and is not binding on the plaintiff, it was for the defendants to have proved by adducing satisfactory evidence that a valid enquiry has been held and the plaintiff had notice prior to such enquiry. It was for the Wakf Board, the appellant, who was the first defendant in the suit, to have placed the necessary records before the Trial Court in that regard. But the first defendant did not adduce any such evidence. In the absence of any such evidence, it is not possible to hold that there has been an enquiry as required under Section 4(3) of the Act before the list was published under Section 5 of the Act and the plaintiff had been notified prior to any such

- 48 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53745 CRP No. 211 of 2019 enquiry. In the absence of such evidence, it has to be held that there is no enquiry at all under Section 4(3) of the Act in the eye of law and consequently the list published without such enquiry is illegal. The learned Trial Judge has come to the right conclusion in this regard also." 8. Per contra Sri Mohammad Niyaz, learned counsel for the contesting respondent Nos.1 and 2 supports the impugned order by contending that in the case on hand, Sections 4 and 5 of the Waqf Act have been complied in toto. 8(i) He would further contend that the applicant was required to invoke Section 6 of the Waqf Act and challenge the notification vide Ex.R1, which has not been invoked. As such, the very application itself was not maintainable. 8(ii) He would also contend that the father of the applicant was Mutawalli of Jamia Masjid of the very same Waqf property, and knowing fully well that the suit property was a Waqf property. Therefore, the plea of the

- 49 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53745 CRP No. 211 of 2019 applicant that he is a bona fide purchaser for value cannot be countenanced in law. 9. Learned Additional Government Advocate supports the impugned order. 10. Having heard the arguments of both sides, the following points would arise for consideration. (1) Whether the applicant has made out a case that the suit property is not part of the Waqf property as per the notification dated 06.01.1965 as per Ex.R1? (2) Whether the applicant further establishes that he is a bona fide purchaser for value? (3) Whether the applicant further proves that Abdul Jaleel and others, being the vendors of the applicant, had right, title and interest to alienate/sell the landed property to the extent of 1 acre 15 guntas on the western side of the land in

- 50 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53745 CRP No. 211 of 2019 Sy.No.218 of Dharmapura village, Hiriyur Taluk, Chitradurga District? (4) Whether the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is suffering from legal infirmity or perversity and thus, calls for interference? (5) What order? Regarding Point Nos.(1) to (4):- 11. In the case on hand, it is the applicant who is challenging Annexures-A and B, which are the order dated 19.03.2010 and requisition dated 31.03.2010 in Enquiry Case No.ENQ/13/CTA/2009 (hereinafter referred to as ‘impugned order’ and ‘requisition’). 12. Admittedly, the application is filed under Section 83(2) of the Waqf Act. For ready reference, Section 83(2) of the Waqf Act is culled out hereunder, to understand the scope and ambit of the said provision. “Section 83(2).- Any mutawalli person interested in a waqf or any other person aggrieved by an order made under this Act, or rules made thereunder, may make an application within the time specified in this Act or where

- 51 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53745 CRP No. 211 of 2019 no such time has been specified, within such time as may be prescribed, to the Tribunal for the determination of any dispute, question or other matter relating to the waqf.” 13. On careful reading of the said provision, in the first place, as is contended on behalf of the respondents, the application itself is highly belated. 14. Be it what it may; the fact remains that land in Sy.No.218 measuring 3 acres 20 guntas, including 30 guntas of Phoot Kharab land, at an undisputed point of time, was noted as waqf property vide Ex.R1, which is the Gazette Notification dated 06.01.1965. A property which has been notified as a waqf property through the Gazette, that too in the year 1965, is sought to be questioned in the application that was filed in the year 2015 by the applicant. 15. Therefore, the contentions that are urged on behalf of the revision petitioner that who dedicated the property to the Waqf and whether there was a Waqf deed

- 52 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53745 CRP No. 211 of 2019 etc., would not be available for consideration in view of the fact that the applicant is not claiming all those aspects by exercising the power under Section 6 of the Waqf Act. Therefore, the entire argument in that regard as to the validity of the notification is outside the purview of the enquiry under Section 83(2) of the Waqf Act, which has been invoked by the applicant. 16. When such is the scope and ambit of the enquiry under Section 83(2) of the Waqf Act, the arguments that are put forth on behalf of the applicant that the impugned order is suffering for want of compliance of the necessary provisions of the Waqf Act, as referred to supra, under Sections 3(c), Section 23(3), Section 17(3) and Section 52(1) and parameters of Section 52(1) are not considered by the Tribunal, would not be available for further discussion. 17. Now coming to the factual aspects of the matter, admittedly, the property is shown as waqf

- 53 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53745 CRP No. 211 of 2019 property as per Ex.R1, RTC extract, appointment of Mutawalli, would make it clear that the property was being treated as Waqf property on and from the date of Gazette Notification dated 06.01.1965 as per Ex.R1. Admittedly, the burial ground and Idgah are situated in the subject matter of the property, which is the land in Sy.No.218 of Dharmpura Village, Hiriyur Taluk, Chitradurga District. 18. Who bifurcated the land in Sy.No.218 into eastern half and western half is not forthcoming on record and the entire application is silent on the said aspect of the matter including the contents of the sale deed marked at Ex.P1. 19. It is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that whoever propounds that he is the lawful owner of the suit property must establish the title to the suit property in his vendor. 20. In this regard, the contents of Ex.P1 are silent except for the vendors saying that they are the owners of

- 54 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53745 CRP No. 211 of 2019 the subject matter of the property in Ex.P1. How Abdul Jaleel and others, who are the vendors of Ex.P1, got the suit property is not forthcoming from the contents of Ex.P1 nor is there any sub-number that has been allotted by the revenue authorities to the eastern half or western half of the subject matter of the property. 21. When such is the factual aspect of the matter, and when there is no sub-number after poding (bifurcating) and when there is no previous title established by the applicant so as to maintain the application as a lawful owner under Section 83(2) itself is not maintainable. 22. Nevertheless, there is a sale deed in favour of the applicant and therefore, it was incumbent on the part of the applicant to examine his vendors or anybody who knew the title in the vendors of the applicant. No such attempt has been made. Merely saying that the applicant is a bona fide purchaser for value, as revenue records did

- 55 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53745 CRP No. 211 of 2019 not show any encumbrance in respect of the suit property, would not be a sufficient explanation in view of the fact that the title of the applicant itself is doubtful. 23. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, in contrast with the revenue entries that are placed on record on behalf of the respondents, especially the RTC extracts wherein it has been specifically mentioned that the land in Sy.No.218 is shown as Muslim burial ground and Idgah, the burden on the applicant to establish his title to the subject matter of the property is all the more necessary. 24. Objection statement filed by the applicant on 04.01.2011, as per Ex.P30, is also silent with regard to the title in respect of the subject matter of the property. 25. Merely no further date is given when the matter was reserved for orders cannot be treated as a procedural lapse as is sought to be portrayed by the revision petitioner.

- 56 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53745 CRP No. 211 of 2019 26. Further, it is to be noted that from the date of communication of the order, the limitation would start to approach the Waqf Tribunal. Even when he approached the Waqf Tribunal, if there is no challenge as to the property being declared as Waqf by Ex.R1 by invoking the powers under Section 6 of the Waqf Act, a mere application under Section 83(2) of the Waqf Act has to be dealt as to the validity of the Annexures-A and B alone which has been rightly carried out by the learned Presiding Officer before the Waqf Tribunal. 27. Pertinently, the father of the applicant has worked as Mutawalli, which was denied by the applicant at first instance and on confrontation of records, he admitted in the cross-examination that his father acted as Mutawalli of Jamia Masjid, it should not lie in the mouth of the applicant that he is a bona fide purchaser of the property. 28. No other material evidence is placed on record by examining bajudars of the land in Sy.No.218 or any

- 57 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53745 CRP No. 211 of 2019 other person who is acquainted with the Waqf property and the property purchased by the applicant are two different properties, learned Trial Judge, if not in so many happy words, has reached the right conclusion. 29. It is needless to emphasize that the burden is always on the person who is making a claim and when he fails to discharge that burden, should lose the case. 30. Therefore, in the case on hand, when the applicant has failed to establish that he is the owner of the western half of Sy.No.218 to the extent of 1 acre 15 guntas and when there is a contra material on record declaring the entire landed property in Sy.No.218 is a Waqf property vide Ex.R1, this Court does not find any legal infirmity. 31. Now, adverting to the two judgments of this Court by the Division Bench, and principles stated therein, both the decisions referred to supra are distinguishable on facts in the case on hand.

- 58 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53745 CRP No. 211 of 2019 32. In the case of Karnataka State Board of Waqfs and State of Karnataka and others in the writ appeal referred to supra, the Hon'ble Division Bench was concerned with the powers of Karnataka Waqf Board and as could be seen from the relevant paragraphs that were referred to supra, the Division Bench was concerning about the scope of Section 4(3) of Waqf Act, wherein how to conduct an enquiry was dealt in detail. Taking the clue from the said judgment and placing reliance on the said judgment, Sri Mohammed Patel contended that without conducting the spot inspection, without properly assessing the material evidence on record, the Annexures-A and B came to be passed, which is incorrect. 33. In the case on hand, when there is a notification vide Ex.R1, all that the enquiry officer was required to do is to call for the report and afford an opportunity for the affected person and thereafter, pass appropriate orders on the report.

- 59 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53745 CRP No. 211 of 2019 34. Such a procedure has been adopted in the case on hand and therefore, the ruling relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Karnataka State Board of Waqfs, referred to supra, is not applicable to the case on hand. 35. The same is the principle of law that has been enunciated by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Karnataka Waqf Board, referred to supra. In paragraph No.20, Their Lordships have dealt in detail about the powers of Section 5 of the Waqf Act and the listing of works prepared by the Waqf Board. 36. It is also held therein that after necessary enquiry by the Commissioner, a list will be published by the State Government. Therefore, the Division Bench held that it is for the Waqf Board, Managing Mutawalli and Sajath Nasheen to prove that Wakf in respect of the suit property existed. 37. In the case on hand, since the Ex.R1 is not under challenge and there is a contra title that was

- 60 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53745 CRP No. 211 of 2019 propounded by the applicant, which was subject matter of before the Tribunal, the principles enunciated in the said decision would not be applicable to the case on hand, as it was not an enquiry under Section 6 of the Waqf Act. 38. It was always open for the applicant to challenge that the entire land in Sy.No.218 Dharmpura Village, Hiryur Taluk, Chitradurga District, was not the Waqf property and he had purchased the property which is not forming the Wakf property. No such attempt is made by the applicant in the proceedings. 39. Under such circumstances, the principles of law enunciated in the decisions of the Division Benches, though cannot be disputed, are not of any avail to the petitioner to advance his case further. 40. Lastly, Sri. Mahamood Patel banked upon the number of admissions of RW1 referred to supra. 41. It is to be noted that, it is the applicant who was challenging the Annexures-A and B and he should stand on his legs and not depend on the admissions of RW.1.

- 61 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53745 CRP No. 211 of 2019 42. Entire burden to prove that Annexures-A and B was illegal was on the applicant and therefore, he cannot bank upon the weakness in the case of the respondent in view of the admissions referred to supra. 43. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that none of the grounds urged in the petition are sufficient enough to admit the revision petition for further consideration. 44. In view of the foregoing discussions following:- ORDER The Civil Revision Petition is meritless and it is hereby dismissed. No orders as to costs. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE BSS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19