Disposed

Syed Ghousuddin S/O Syed Osman Anr. v. Nr, Kutajatg S/O Ghulam Ahmed Kazi Ors.

Karnataka HC6 Jun 2012WA/50307/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of writ appeals arising from a direction to the State Government to reconsider requests for appointment as Khazis. The Court held that since the appointment of appellants wasn't quashed, the direction was merely to consider other applicants, and the Government must select fit persons based on resident recommendations.

What did the court decide?

Appellants to put forward objections; Government directed to consider writ petitioners' request to appoint them as Khazis based on resident recommendations.

Syed Ghousuddin S/O Syed Osman Anr. Vs Nr, Kutajatg… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶2

CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA

¶3

DATED THIS THE⁶ th DAY OF JUNE 2012

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SREEDHAR RAO

¶6

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A N VENUGOPALA GOWDA

¶8

WRIT APPEAL NOS 50307/2012

¶9

A/W

¶10

WA. 50308/2012 & 50347/2012 (GM-RES)

¶11

BETWEEN

¶12

SYED GHOUSUDDIN Sb SYED OSMAN AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶13

R/O AFZALPUR,

¶14

DIST: GULBARGA,

¶15

GULBARGA.

¶16

SRI MOHAMMED HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, SADAR QUAZI, NO.7-109, R/O MOMINPURA BHADKAL, SHARIAT MAHAL, GULBARGA, GULBARGA.

¶17

AppeHants (Common)

¶18

(By Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, Advocate)

¶19

¶20

ANt

¶21

MR. LIYAKATh 5/0 GHULAM AHMED KAZI 0CC: GOVT SERVICE AFZALPUR TOWN, GULBARGA DIST,

¶22

THROUGH POWER OF ATORNEY, MOINUDDIN 5/0 AFZAL PASHA,

¶23

AGE: 34 YEARS, AFZALPUR TOWN, GULBARGA.

¶24

STATE OF KARNATAKA THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINORITY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA,

¶25

BANGALORE-Ol, BANGALORE CITY.

¶26

SRI. RIYAZUDDIN QUAZI 5/0 RAHIMUDDIN QYAZI, ATNOOR CIRCLE, AFZALPUR TALUK, GULBARGA.

¶27

THE TAHSILDAR, OFFICE TO TAHSIWAR AFZALPUR,

¶28

TQ: AGZALAPUR,

¶29

GULBARGA.

¶30

...Respondents IN W.A.50307/2012

¶31

(By Sri A. Vijay Kumar, Adv.)

¶32

ThE STATE OF KARNATAKA THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINORITY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE-Ol,

¶33

BANGALORE CITY.

¶34

RIYAZUDDIN KHAZI R/AT ATANOOR,

¶35

TQ: AFZALPUR, DIST: GULBARGA, GULBARGA.

¶36

SALAHUDDIN KHAZI RIO AT ATANOOR,

¶37

TQ: AFZALPUR, DIST: GULBARGA, GULBARGA.

¶38

ALLEMUDDIN KHAZI

¶39

R/O AT ATANOOR,

¶40

TQ: AFZALPUR, DIST: GULBARGA,

¶41

MINHAJUDDIN KHAZI

¶42

R/O AT ATANOOR,

¶43

TQ: AFZALPUR, DIST: GULBARGA, GULBARGA.

¶44

NAJMUDDIN KHAZI

¶45

NO:1 TO 5 ARE SONS OF LATE RAHIMUDDIN, S/O MANULLA,

¶46

R/AT ATANOOR,

¶47

TQ: AFZALPUR, DIST: GULBARGA, GULBARGA.

¶48

SADRUDDIN @ ABRARUDDIN 5/0 RIYAZUDDIN KHAZI,

¶49

MINOR UNDER CARE AND CUSTODY AND, REP.BY NATURAL FATHER GUARDIAN, RIYAZUDDIN KHAZI, NO.1 (A), R/AT ATNOOR TQ: AFZALPUR, DIST: GULBARGA, GULBARGA.

¶50

LIYAKATH S/O GULAM AEZAL SAB MAJOR,

¶51

¶52

R/O AFZALPUR TOWN, DIST: GULBARGA, TEHSILDAR, OFFICE OF TEHSILDAR AFZALPUR, TQ: AFZALPUR, DIST: GULBARGA, GULBARGA.

¶53

TAHSILDAR OFFICE OF TAHSILDAR, AFZALPUR, TQ: AFZALPUR,

¶54

.Respondents in W.A.50309/2012 & W.A/50347/2012

¶55

These Writ Appeals filed U/s 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, praying to set aside the order dated: 12.03.2012 passed by the learned single judge in W.PNo. 83856/2011 and 84085/2011 & 84135/2011 and grant any other appropriate order.

¶56

These appeals coming on for admission, this day, VENUGbPALA GOWDA, J delivered the following:

¶57

JUDGMENT

¶58

Government of Karnataka acting under S.2 of Khazis Act, 1880 (‘the Act’ for short), appointed the appellants as Khazis on 13.5.2011. Respondents 2 to 4, preferred a review petition before the State Government and the same

¶59

¶60

was dismissed on 8.7.2011. W.P.Nos.84085 and 84135 of 2011 were filed questioning the said orders.

¶61

Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions and directed respondents 1 and 5 therein to consider the request of the writ petitioners and also the respondents² to 4 in the writ petitions. These writ appeals^aredirected against the said order.

¶62

Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, learned counsel contended that, appointment of appellants as Khazis having not been found fault with, there was no necessity for the learned Single Judge to have issued a direction to consider the request of the writ petitioners and^alsothe appellants, for appointment as Khazis, Learned counsel submitted that the direction issued has effect of compelling the State Government to exercise discretion otherwise than what it has exercised and hence interference^inthe matter is called for. According to him, respondents herein cannot seek appointments as Khazis, since the^appellants have hereditary right.

¶63

¶64

caveators, on the other hand, would support the order passed by the learned Single Judge and seek dismissal of 4. Smt. LK.Hema, learned counsel appearing for a p pea Is.

¶65

consider the matter accordance take decision. with and official respondents submitted that the Government would law 5. Sri Manvendra Reddy, learned AGA appearing for in

¶66

the the are appointed, enure than 90 villages are involved in their applications filed by the writ petitioners, it would result in services more than Mohammadan residents in the area, with an opinion right considering reducing the burden on the appointed Khazis, to officiate, would to Khazis are appointed to choose Khazi of their choice 6. Learned Single Judge having noticed that, more by in 90 villages simultaneously and if more number of Khazis 2 3 revenue circles and if

¶67

¶68

Judge, It is clear that the appoIntment of appellants as the petitioners, to appoint them as Khazis of Afzalpur Taluk petitions have been allowed, directing State Government consisting of 3 circles and 90 villages coming thereunder. and Tahsildar, Afzalpur, to consider the request of writ Khazis on 13.5.2011 has not been found fault with. 7. From the observations made by the learned Single Writ

¶69

that, It provides for appointment of not just one person, the residents will not have an option to choose a Khazi to deems fit, based on the recommendation of the Principal i.e., Afzalpur, Atanoor and Karajgi which have 90 villages. appointed. but more than one person as Khazi, as the Government There are 3 revenue circles In Afzaifur Taluk, Mohammadan residents of the area to which Khazis are Single Judge in the matter is sound and proper. One or two persons appointed as Khazis may not be in a position to officiate as Khazis in all 3 revenue circles and officiate. In the cIrcumstances, view taken by the learned 8. S.2 of the Act, when perused, It becomes clear

Since the learned Single Judge has not found fault with the appointment of the appellants as Khazis, the order/direction issued has to be construed as one directing consideration of request of the writ petitioners for appointing them as Khazis. Since the appointment of appellants as Khazis has not been quashed, appellants cannot have any grievance against the order passed by the learned Single Judge, i.e., to consider the case of the writ petitioners also for appointment as Khazis.

¶74

In the said view of the matter, writ appeals are disposed of and Government is directed to consider the request of writ petitioners for appointment as Khazis, based on the recommendation of the Principal Mohammadan residents of the area and select one or more fit person/s and appoint him/them as Khazis for the area. It is open to the appellants to putforth their objections, if any, before the Government and it is for the Government to consider the matter in the light of the provisions contained In S.2 of the Act.

Ordered accordingly.

Sri Manvendra Reddy, learned AGA is permitted to

¶79

file memo of appearance within 4 weeks from today.

¶80

Sd/s JUDGE

¶81

RIDGE

¶82

Ks]?

Syed Ghousuddin S/O Syed Osman Anr. v. Nr, Kutajatg S/O Ghulam Ahmed Kazi Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Ghousuddin S/O Syed Osman Anr. v. Nr, Kutajatg S/O Ghulam Ahmed Kazi Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Palani S/O Chinnappa Vs the State through Hatti P.S

Shobha W/O Ashok Kulkarni Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Ors.

The State of Karnataka Vs Ateeq S/O Moinuddin

Yallappa S/O Hanamantha Kureknal Vs the State through Narayanpur P S

Rangareddy S/O Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Lingappa S/O Kalappa Aushe Anr. Vs Shri Vithal Reddy S/O Gunda Reddy Anr.