Allowed

Shri Sayyed Noor Ahmed S/O Syed Abdul Munaf Inamdar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Jun 2022WP/101819/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court quashed an inquiry order passed by the Karnataka State Board of Auqaf under Article 226 for denial of natural justice, specifically the lack of opportunity to lead evidence and cross-examine witnesses, despite the availability of a statutory appeal remedy.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 22.04.2022 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to Respondent No.2 to afford opportunity to lead evidence and cross-examine witnesses, with directions to complete

Shri Sayyed Noor Ahmed S/O Syed… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 101818 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 01^ST DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 101818 OF 2022 (GM-WAKF)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Digitally
signed by
VINAYAKA
B V
VINAYAKA Location:
B V Dharwad
Date:
2022.06.09
10:23:10
+0530

¶9

SMT. MEHABOOBI W/O REHMANAGA PATIL KULKARNI, AGE:72 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O:KHURSAPUR, TQ:SHIGGAON, , TQ. SHIGGAON, DIST. HAVERI-581 202.

¶10

SMT. SHAKIRABANU W/O. AMAJADBASHA, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O:BEHIND KAMIKA SCHOOK, MELUKOTE ROAD, VEERSAGAR, TUMAKURU - 572 101.

¶11

SHRI. BAHADURAGA URF BADURSHA GA S/O. RELMANAGA PATIL KULKARNI, AGE:47 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O:KHURSAPUR, TQ: SHIGGAON, DIST. HAVERI-581 202.

¶12

SHRI. HAZRAT AGA S/O. REHMANAGA PATIL KULKARNI AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O:KHURSAPUR, TQ. SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI - 581 202.

¶13

SMT. TAHERABANU W/O. KASHIMSAB MAKANDAR, AGE:43 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O:H.NO.696, 14^TH BLOCK, TOWNSHIP, DANDELI, TQ. HALIYAL, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA - 581 325

¶14

SHRI. HASANAGA S/O. REHMANAGA PATIL KULKARNI, AGE:39 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O:KHURSAPUR, TQ: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI - 581 202.

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

¶17

WP No. 101818 of 2022

¶18

(BY SRI. SHIVRAJ S. BALLOLI., ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND:

¶20

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA MINORITY WELFARE, HAJ AND WAKF DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶21

THE ENQUIRY OFFICER AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF AUQAF ”DARUL AWKAF” NO.6, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU560 052.

¶22

JUMMA MASJID, KHURSAPUR VILLAGE, TQ. SHIGGAON, DIST. HAVERI - 581 202. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT - MUTAVALLI, SHRI. GOUSUSAB S/O. MODINSAB MOHAMMEDSABNAVAR.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI.VINAYAK V.S., HCGP FOR R1)

¶25

(BY SRI.B.MUHAMMAD ALI., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶26

(BY SRI.J.S.SHETTY., ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO, A. ISSUE A WRIT CERTIORARI THEREBY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22/04/2022 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN KSBA/ENQ-54/175/HVR/2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

WP No. 101818 of 2022

¶31

ORDER

¶32

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

¶33

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that impugned order dated 22.04.2022 at Annexure–A passed by respondent No.2/ Enquiry Officer of the Karnataka State Board of Auqaf is required to be set aside only on the ground that complete opportunity of hearing was not given to the petitioners. Although it is admitted that the petitioners who were respondents before the authority had filed objections, nevertheless, it is clear from the order sheet and the impugned order that the respondents have not led any evidence before the authority and have not argued the matter.

¶34

Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand seek to contend that when the petitioners who were respondents before the authority filed their objections and ample opportunity was given to them to adduce evidence and argue the matter, but they failed to adduce evidence and argue the matter, it cannot be said

¶35

¶36

WP No. 101818 of 2022

¶37

that no opportunity was given to them. It is further submitted that the petitioners have furnished certain documents along with the objections. It is also contended that no documents worth the paper on which it is written was submitted by the petitioners to establish their title over the property.

¶38

It is also argued by the learned counsel for the contesting respondents that the petitioners have an alternative and efficacious remedy by way of an appeal before the Wakf Tribunal under Section 83(2) of the Wakf Act, 1995.

¶39

Having heard the learned counsels and on perusing the petition papers, including the order sheet maintained by the respondent No.2/ authority, it is clear that the matter was first heard on 12.02.2019. On 30.04.2019 the learned counsel appeared on behalf of the respondents. After two dates of hearing the matter was heard on interlocutory application. Objections were filed on behalf of the respondents on 17.03.2020 and matter was

¶40

¶41

WP No. 101818 of 2022

¶42

heard on I.A. On 03.11.2020 I.A was rejected. On 08.04.2021 it is noted that the I.A is rejected. Respondent advocate requested to give time for submission of written arguments. Thereafter for four hearings the matter could not be taken up due to administrative reasons. On 17.02.2022 the matter was adjourned to 25.03.2022. On 25.03.2022 it is recorded that the petitioners advocate is present and the respondent is absent. Respondent arguments are taken as heard and matter is posted for orders. Therefore it is clear that no evidence was recorded and no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioners herein.

¶43

Time and again this Court has held that the cases have to be decided on their merits. Even if adjournments are required to be given, since the ends of justice have to be met, ample opportunity is required to be given to the parties and the matter have to be decided on their merits. In the present case, since it is clear from the order sheet mentioned by the respondent No.2/ authority

¶44

¶45

WP No. 101818 of 2022

¶46

that only the examination in chief of PW.1 was recorded and the evidence of the respondents was not recorded and further an interlocutory application was filed at the hands of the petitioners therein to withdraw the earlier affidavit filed as examination in chief, the contentions of the learned counsel for petitioners herein is required to be upheld.

¶47

The matter requires to be reconsidered by the respondent No.2/ authority by giving an opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence and cross-examine the other witnesses.

¶48

The contention of the learned Counsel for the

¶49

contesting respondents that the instant writ petition is not maintainable and the same is required to be dismissed on the ground of maintainability, there being an alternative and efficacious remedy by way of an appeal provided under sub-section (2) of Section 83, also requires to be rejected, since it is found by this Court that the impugned order suffers from the vice of denial of natural justice to

¶50

¶51

WP No. 101818 of 2022

¶52

the parties. Moreover, this Court is of the considered opinion that the matter requires to be reconsidered by the second respondent by giving opportunity of hearing, including opportunity to the parties to lead evidence and thereafter, hear the arguments.

¶53

Consequently the impugned order dated 22.04.2022 at Annexure-A is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter stands remanded back to the respondent No.2/ authority to afford an opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence, cross-examine the witnesses on the other side, hear the learned counsels and thereafter pass orders.

¶54

The entire excise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three months from 13.06.2022. The parties herein are directed to appear before the respondent No.2/ authority on 13.06.2022 at 11:00 am without waiting for further notice.

¶55

¶56

WP No. 101818 of 2022

¶57

Ordered accordingly.

¶58

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 and the learned HCGP are permitted to file vakalath/ memo of

¶59

appearance within a period of four weeks from today.

¶60

SD JUDGE

¶61

Shri Sayyed Noor Ahmed S/O Syed Abdul Munaf Inamdar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Sayyed Noor Ahmed S/O Syed Abdul Munaf Inamdar v. the State of Karnataka

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

Sri. Sugandharaj S/O Krishnappa Badiger Vs the Addl. Deputy Commissioner

Smt SHARADABAIm W/O Sri. Nagaraj Naik , Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr.M.D.Hussain Peeran S/O Dastagir Sab Vs Karnataka State Boad of Auqaf

Muppanna a Pujari Since Decd by His Lrs Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Smt. Mehaboobi W/O Rehmanaga Patil Kulkarni Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Mehaboobi W/O Rehmanaga Patil Kulkarni Vs the State of Karnataka