Dismissed

Jamia Masjid Sunni (Wakf) Yelahanka v. the Land Tribunal North (Addl)

Karnataka HC3 Nov 2022WP/27846/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed two writ petitions challenging the Land Tribunal's order granting occupancy rights to private cultivators. The Court held that agrarian reform acts, as special laws, apply to Wakf land where tenants were in possession since the cutoff date. Long-standing admissions of tenancy override subsequent corrections in Gazette notifications.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions filed by Jamia Masjid and Karnataka State Board of Wakf to quash the Land Tribunal order were dismissed with costs.

Jamia Masjid Sunni (Wakf) Yelahanka Vs the Land Tribunal… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER , 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.27846 OF 2016(LR) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.5258 OF 2018(LR)

¶7

IN W.P.NO.27846/2016:

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

JAMIA MASJID SUNNI (WAKF), YELAHANKA, BY ITS MANAGING COMMITTEE, THE PRESIDENT, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-560 064.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI.P S MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE LAND TRIBUNAL NORTH (ADDL), NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE, BY ITS CHAIRMAN(ASST.COMM) BANGALORE-560 052.

¶14

THE KARANTAKA STATE BOARD OF WAKF, BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFICER, NO.6, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE-560 052.

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS PRINCIAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPT, M S BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶16

¶17

SHRI KEMPANNA DISCEASED BY HIS LRS

¶18

A) SMT. LAXMAMMA W/O LATE KEMPANNA,

¶19

B) Y K NARASARAJU S/O LATE KEMPANNA

¶20

C) K DEVARAJU S/O LATE KEMPANNA

¶21

SINCE DEAD BY LRS OF THE RESPONDENT NO.4(C)

¶22

4C(1) MANJULA W/O K DEVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

¶23

4C(2) POOJA D/O K DEVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,

¶24

4C(3) HARSHITHA D/O K DEVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS,

¶25

4C(4) HEMASHRI D/O K DEVARAJ, ALL ARE R/O NO.1100, HOSABEEDHI, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE – 560 064.

¶26

SHRI. KRISHNAPPA , DECEASED BY HIS LRS

¶27

D) SMT. LAXMAMMA W/O. LATE. KRISHNAPPA,

¶28

E) K S CHANDRASHEKAR S/O. KRISHNAPPA

¶29

F) K SHRINIVAS S/O. KRISHNAPPA

¶30

ALL ARE MAJORS AND R/O YELAHANKA, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE DIST.

¶31

… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V SESHU, HCGP FOR R1 & R3; MISS SWATHI ASHOK, ADVOCATE FOR SMT.S.R.ANURADHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI.JAYAKUMAR S PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI. SUMANTH KUMAR S PATIL, ADV., FOR R4(A) & (B);

¶32

¶33

R5(A) TO (C) & R4(C)(1) TO (4))

¶34

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF LAND TRIBUNAL OF BANGALORE NORTH TALUK VIDE DTD28.10.2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND ETC.,

¶35

IN W.P.NO.5258/2018:

¶36

BETWEEN:

¶37

THE KARANTAKA STATE BOARD OF WAKF, BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFICER, NO.6, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE-560 052.

¶38

...PETITIONER

¶39

(BY MISS.SWATHI ASHOK, ADVOCATE)

¶40

AND:

¶41

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS PRINCIAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPT, M S BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶42

THE LAND TRIBUNAL NORTH (ADDL), NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE, BY ITS CHAIRMAN(ASST.COMM) BANGALORE-560 052.

¶43

SHRI KEMPANNA DISCEASED BY HIS LRS

¶44

A) SMT. LAXMAMMA W/O LATE KEMPANNA,

¶45

B) Y K NARASARAJU S/O LATE KEMPANNA

¶46

C) K DEVARAJU S/O LATE KEMPANNA

¶47

SINCE DEAD BY LRS OF THE RESPONDENT NO.4(C)

¶48

¶49

4C(1) MANJULA W/O K DEVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

¶50

4C(2) POOJA D/O K DEVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,

¶51

4C(3) HARSHITHA D/O K DEVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS,

¶52

4C(4) HEMASHRI D/O K DEVARAJ, ALL ARE R/O NO.1100, HOSABEEDHI, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE – 560 064.

¶53

SHRI. KRISHNAPPA , DECEASED BY HIS LRS

¶54

D) SMT. LAXMAMMA W/O. LATE. KRISHNAPPA,

¶55

E) K S CHANDRASHEKAR S/O. KRISHNAPPA

¶56

F) K SHRINIVAS S/O. KRISHNAPPA

¶57

ALL ARE MAJORS AND R/O YELAHANKA, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE DIST.

¶58

JAMIA MASJID SUNNI (WAKF), YELAHANKA, BY ITS MANAGING COMMITTEE, THE PRESIDENT, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-560 064.

¶59

… RESPONDENTS

¶60

(BY SRI. V SESHU, HCGP FOR R1 & R2; SRI.JAYAKUMAR S PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI. SUMANTH KUMAR S PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3(A) & R3(C(I) TO (IV) & R4(A)TO(C); SRI.P.S.MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶61

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF LAND TRIBUNAL OF BANGALORE NORTH TALUK IN LRF:INA/CR/02-1978-98 VIDE ANNEX-A DATED 28.10.2014 AND ETC.,

¶62

¶63

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶64

ORDER

¶65

These two petitions, i.e., one by the Jamia Masjid (Sunni Wakf) in W.P No. 27846/2016 and the other by the Karnataka State Board of Aukaf in companion W.P No. 5258/2018, seek to lay a challenge to the same order dated 28.10.2014 whereby the Land Tribunal has accorded occupancy of the land in question in favour of the private Respondents 1977 in terms of their application in Form No.1 under the provisions of the Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act.

¶66

Learned Sr. Panel Counsel appearing for the

¶67

petitioners vehemently argues that the impugned order is liable to be set aside because: the land in question was enlisted as the property of Wakf Board and therefore, occupancy could not have been registered; no tenancy was created by the competent person in favour of the claimants; they were not in the cultivation of the subject

¶68

¶69

land; lastly, that the Tribunal has not followed the due procedure prescribed under the extant Rules. So contending he seeks voiding of the impugned order.

¶70

After service of notice, the official respondents

¶71

are represented by the learned HCGP and the private Respondents speak through the learned Sr. Advocate Mr. Jayakumar S Patil; both they make submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been structured. Mr. Patil submits that the agrarian law enacted in terms of 1977 Act has to be treated as a special legislation consistent with the Directive Principles of State Policy; as on the relevant day, the subject land was not enlisted as Wakf/Aukaf property; the person who granted lease of land was competent to create tenancy; and that his clients being in the cultivation of the subject land as on 01.03.1974 are rightly granted occupancy. So contending he seeks dismissal of Writ Petition.

¶72

Having heard the learned counsel for the

¶73

parties and having perused the petition papers, this

¶74

¶75

Court declines indulgence in the matters for the following reasons:

¶76

A. AS TO AGRARIAN POLICY AND LEGISLATIVE RESPONSE:

¶77

(a) The policy of agrarian reforms is consistent with constitutional goals set in Directive Principles of State Policy enacted in Part IV of the Constitution. The solemn declaration of the Preamble envisaged inter alia social and economic justice. With agrarian reforms, the Makers of the Constitution sought to establish an economic democracy and to break away from feudalistic shackles colonially entrenched within Indian society. The Chief Architect of the Constitution, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar on 19.11.1948 while addressing the Constituent Assembly had said as under:

¶78

“…I have said just now that our object in framing this Constitution is really twofold: (i) to lay down the form of political democracy, and (M) to lay down that our ideal is economic democracy and also to prescribe that every Government whatever, it is in power, shall strive to bring about economic democracy, much of the misunderstanding under which most members are labouring will disappear…”

¶79

¶80

(b) It is pertinent to refer to Professor M.L.

¶81

Upadhaya’s paper on agrarian reform as under¹ :

¶82

“…In short, at the commencement of the Constitution, the state was called upon to bring about a social order based on justice and equality. Needless to add that a majority of Indians lived in villages and were either engaged in agriculture or were otherwise dependent on land. Therefore, of the various schemes adopted to secure to them social and economic justice, the programme of agrarian reform was singularly significant. The first and foremost object of the programme of agrarian reform was to effect fundamental institutional changes in agrarian structure. The outmoded and inegalitarian structure that prevailed in pre-Independence India had resulted in the unequal distribution of income and wealth, and disparities in the standard of living. Besides, the programme was designed to eliminate all elements of exploitation and social injustice w in the agrarian system so as to ensure equality of status and of opportunity to all sections of rural population…”

¶83

In RANJIT SINGH vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AIR 1965 SC 632 expounding on the interrelation between agrarian reform and rural economic planning, the Apex Court observed as under:

¶84

1 M.L Upadhyaya, ‘ Judicial Process and Agrarian Reform’ , Journal of Indian Law Institute, Vol. 25, pp 238 – 261 (1983)

¶85

¶86

“ No doubt the redistribution of lands so that a few may not monopolize the land is the cardinal principle on which agrarian economy in a socialistic pattern of society rests…[T]he general scheme of legislation is definitely agrarian reform and under its provisions something ancillary thereto in the interests of rural economy, has to be undertaken to give effect to the reforms - the settling of a body of agricultural artisans .... is a part of rural planning and can be comprehended in a scheme of agrarian reforms…"

¶87

¶88

integrated policy aimed at eliminating the obstacles to economic and social development of the rural economies. Specifically, it aims to provide inter alia ownership of land by its tiller, improvement of employment conditions, opportunities for agricultural, reduction of rural indebtedness, and fiscal and financial policy in relation to land reform to promote land utilization and distribution. The principle intent apart, its policy content may vary depending on the requirement of the agricultural development and regional economies vide V.N. NARAYANAN NAIR VS. STATE OF KERALA AIR 1971 Ker 98. Inseparably the objective of abolition of Inams too

¶89

¶90

form a part of agrarian reform and is consistent with the Part IV principles. In STATE OF KERALA AND ANR VS GWALIOR RAYON AIR 1973 SC 2734 elucidating upon this inclusive view it is observed as under:

¶91

“…It is thus clear to those, who understand developmental dialectic and rural planning that agrarian reform is more humanist than mere land reform and, scientifically viewed, covers not merely abolition of intermediary tenures, zamindaris and the like but restructuring of village life itself taking in its broad embrace the socioeconomic regeneration of the rural population. The Indian Constitution is a social instrument with an economic mission and the sense and sweep of its provisions must be gathered by judicial statesmen on that seminal footing…”

¶92

B. AS TO CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES:

¶93

(d) With the above prelude, let me examine the contentions of the parties. The first contention advanced on behalf of the Petitioners that the subject property as on the date i.e., 01.03.1974 was already a Wakf property although the corrigendum is issued only on 17.09.2011 to rectify the survey number, is bit difficult to countenance. Apparently it is not a case of rectification of survey number but the insertion of a new land; only

¶94

¶95

those properties which have been fully described and enlisted in the Notification issued under Section 5(2) of the erstwhile Wakf Act, 1954 would become properties of Wakf Board is the settled legal position vide T.N. WAKF BOARD vs. HATHIJA AMMAL (2001) 8 SCC 528 . Therefore, the property in question as on the appointed date was not the one belonging to the ownership of Wakf Board. Even otherwise, the Wakf Act is subject to the legislation relating to agrarian reforms which partakes the character of a special law. To put it differently, if land belonging to temples and churches can be subject to agrarian reforms and therefore can be tenanted, there is absolutely no reasons whatsoever as to why the land belonging to mosque or wakf should carved out as an exception to this norm.

¶96

(e) The points for consideration before the Tribunal is (i) whether the said property was Inam land..?; (ii) whether it was tenanted as on the cut off date..?; (iii) whether tenancy was created by competent persons..? The first Petitioner Jamia Masjid who had let out the land

¶97

¶98

in favour of the private Respondents had deposed before

¶99

the Land Tribunal to the effect that Mr. Patil’s clients were cultivating the land on the basis of tenancy and that they were giving ‘ Varshika Gutta ’ as well since 1965, i.e., much before the appointed date. The admission of parties to the proceeding are always treated almost conclusive vide SLATTERIE vs. POOLEY , 151 ER 579 (1840). No explanation is offered to diminish the efficacy of such an admission and therefore, the decision of the Land Tribunal in founding the impugned order inter alia on such admission cannot be faltered. The contention of petitioners to the contra is rightly rejected by the following observations of the Land Tribunal at paragraph 18 of the impugned order:

¶100

“18. Further the respondent contended that in the Gazette notification No.MBW 19(1) dated:06-07-1965 the property in question was not included because of the typographical error. Therefore by way of Corrigendum dated 17-09-2011 the land in question is notified. In view of the above finding we come to the conclusion that the and in question was in the occupation of the claimants since 1965. we are of the opinion that by issuing a corrigendum dated 17-09-

¶101

¶102

2011 the first respondent cannot take away the rights created in favour of the applicants. Further it shows that the Corrigendum is issued even after of lapse 46 years from the date of Original notification it clearly shows that the Corrigendum is after thought. Accordingly we answered point No.3.”

¶103

(f) Learned Sr. Advocate Mr. Patil is more than

¶104

justified in drawing the attention of Court to paragraph 11 of the Impugned order whereby petitioners contention has been rightly rejected. The same reads as under:

¶105

“16…. It shows that there is no force in the contention of the respondent regarding the validity of the agreement dated 15-01-1974. Further the respondents have not produced any material evidence to disprove the rent receipts produced by the applicants wherein he paid the gutta. Even the respondents have not disputed the revenue entries which clearly established that since 1973 onwards the name of the original applicants was reflecting the cultivators’ column, which shows the possession was with the applicants. On behalf of the respondents they have marked the documents as exhibit R1 to R12 wherein they have produced the copy of the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.19646/1991, W.P.No.12021/2008 and the Gazette notification etc., Most of the documents are subsequent to the date of filing the application filed by the applicant. Further the respondents have not produced even a single document to disprove the claim made by the applicant. On the other hand

¶106

¶107

exhibit R10A to R10F the RTC clearly establishes’ the claim made by the applicant. Further in the cross examination the first respondent clearly admitted that in the Gazette notification No.MBW 19(1) dated 0607-1965, the subject and was not notified. Further he stated that he has no knowledge about the documents. The second respondent in his cross examination admitted that since 1965 the applicants were in possession and the second respondent had not made any effort to take the possession from them. The RTC entry also reflected the same. These contentions clearly establish that the applicants are in possession and enjoyment of the land in question as a tenant and they are entitled for grant of occupancy right. Accordingly we answered the point no.2.”

¶108

In the above circumstances, these petitions being devoid of merits are liable to be dismissed and accordingly, they are, costs having been made reluctantly easy.

¶109

Sd/JUDGE

¶110

Bsv

Jamia Masjid Sunni (Wakf) Yelahanka v. the Land Tribunal North (Addl)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jamia Masjid Sunni (Wakf) Yelahanka v. the Land Tribunal North (Addl)

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

Sri M N Sathyanarayan Vs the Secretary

Smt.Rajalakshmi Vs the Chairman

Smt Sakamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri C Mahesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Manjunath K.M. Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.B.Narayana Gowda Vs State of Karnataka