Dismissed

Shri.Rayazahmed S/O Hazarathsab Sharif v. Enquiry Officer/Chief Executive Officer

Karnataka HC14 Feb 2019WP/108372/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioner challenged an order rejecting an application challenging the maintainability of eviction proceedings. The court noted the subject property was notified as a Waqf institution via Gazette. Relying on ILR 1996 KAR 3536, it held the notification was conclusive proof of ownership, divesting the authority from jurisdiction to dispute nature. The court found no merit and dismissed the pe

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands rejected.

Shri.Rayazahmed S/O Hazarathsab Sharif Vs Enquiry… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

- 1 -

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.108372/2018 (GM-WAKF)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SHRI.RAYAZAHMED S/O HAZARATHSAB SHARIF AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: BUSIENSS, R/O: CTS NO.2018/A, ANANDWADI, SHAHAPUR-BELAGAVI.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. A.D.SHILLEDAR, ADV.)

¶11

AND

¶12

ENQUIRY OFFICER/CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF AUQAF, BENGALURU.

¶13

SHERKHAN JUMMA MASJID DARBAR GALLI, BELAGAVI, REP. BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR, B.M. RISALDAR, BELAGAVI.

¶14

MALLAPRABHA GRAMEENA BANK HINDALGA (E), BELAGAVI.

¶15

... RESPONDENTS

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04.12.2017 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN CASE NO.PP/50/BGM/15 VIDE ANNEXURE-"D".

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶21

Petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the order passed on the interlocutory application preferred under Sections 84 and 85 of the Waqf Act, 1995 read with Sections 11 and 115 of CPC praying that the proceedings before the competent authority under the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974 are not maintainable.

¶22

It is the case of the petitioner that it has been specifically pleaded that the subject property is not a Waqf property and that in the petition itself, the respondents at para 6 and 7 have clearly admitted the sale transaction.

¶23

In that view of the matter, the competent authority is divested of any jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the dispute with regard to the nature of the subject property as to whether it is a Waqf property or a

¶24

¶25

private property. It is further contended that such a jurisdiction is vested only in the Tribunal constituted under the Waqf Act and hence, he would pray for quashing the impugned order passed on the interlocutory application.

¶26

This Court has perused the petition and objections raised by the defence and the defence set up by the respondent. The competent authority after perusing the petition papers and pleadings in the application has deemed it fit to reject the application on the premise that there is a prima facie material to demonstrate that the subject matter was notified as Waqf institution which was initially registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 and that the said properties are entered at Sl.No.B-222 and the entry relates to 22.03.1954 and that after the enactment of the Waqf Act, the same has been notified as a Waqf institution and the properties are listed at Sl.No.84 and 88 of the Waqf Gazette Notification dated 18.05.1079. Further, the competent authority has also placed

¶27

¶28

reliance on the ruling of this Court reported in ILR 1996 KAR 3536 to hold that the Gazette Publication notifying the property as Waqf property is conclusive proof as to the ownership of the properties of the Waqf.

¶29

It is not in dispute that the competent authority is otherwise entitled to consider and hear the issue involved i.e., the eviction of the petitioner under the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974. The conclusion is backed by sound reasoning. The competent authority has placed reliance on the provisions of the Waqf Act and the ruling of this Court in support of its conclusion. In that view of the matter, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, petition stands rejected.

¶30

Rsh /jm/-

Shri.Rayazahmed S/O Hazarathsab Sharif v. Enquiry Officer/Chief Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri.Rayazahmed S/O Hazarathsab Sharif v. Enquiry Officer/Chief Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri.Uttam S/O Chandrakant Sanadi Vs State of Karnataka

Dr Arun Jaiswal (Meerapuraiaya) Vs Sri Chandrashekhar W/O

Anita W/O Kandi Hemaraddi Vs Sajjanna Ganigera

Nandini D/O. Late Krishnakumar Vs Assistant Executive Engineer

Sri.D.F.Babu Sab S/O Fakkurasab Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.D.F.Babu Sab S/O Fakkurasab Vs the State of Karnataka