Dismissed

Karnataka State Board of Wakf v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC24 Mar 2023WA/615/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the appellant's writ appeal challenging a Deputy Commissioner's order granting occupancy rights to a tenant under the Mysuru Inams Abolition Act, 1970, despite the land being notified as Wakf property.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed, upholding the order granting occupancy rights to the late Sri. Channa Nanjappa.

Karnataka State Board of Wakf Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WA No. 615 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT APPEAL NO.615 OF 2018 (GM-WAKF)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF WAKF BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NO.6, CUNNINGHAM ROAD,

¶11

BENGALURU - 560 052

¶12

REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

¶13

…APPELLANT

¶14

(BY MISS. BHAVANA N PAIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MALIPATIL P S, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶15

Digitally signed by GAYATHRI N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DISTRICT, BENGALURU

¶17

SRI. CHANNA NANJAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR's 2(i) SMT. HONNAMMA, W/O. LATE CHANNA NANJAPPA, 2(ii) SRI. GUBBANNA S/O. CHANNA NANJAPPA,

¶18

2(ii)(a) H.G.MANJUNATH S/O LATE GUBBANNA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶19

2 - WA No. 615 of 2018

¶20

2(ii)(b) H.G.KUMAR S/O LATE GUBBANNA,

¶21

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶22

2(ii)(c) H.G.LATHA D/O LATE GUBBANNA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

¶23

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF HESARAGATTA VILLAGE, HESARAGATTA HOBLI.

¶24

2(iii) SRI. SHANKARAPPA S/O. CHANNA NANJAPPA,

¶25

2(iv) SRI. MANJUNATH S/O. CHANNA NANJAPPA,

¶26

2(v) SRI. GANGADHARAIAH S/O. CHANNA NANJAPPA,

¶27

ALL ARE RESIDENTS AT HESARAGATTA VILLAGE, HESARAGATTA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI. B.RAJENDRA PRASAD, HCGP FOR R1;

¶30

SRI. MANJUNATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. T.SHESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (C-E); VIDE ORDER DATED 29.01.2020, APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED AS ABATED AGAINST R2 (a & b); R2 (B)(1), R2 (B)(2) - SERVED;

¶31

VIDE ORDER DATED 31.08.2021, R2 (B)(C), LRs OF DECEASED R2 (B) IS DISPENSED WITH;

¶32

VIDE ORDER DATED 31.08.2021, MEMO FOR TREATING R2(C-E) IS ACCEPTED AS LRs OF DECEASED RS(A)

¶33

THIS WA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.09.2017 PASSED IN W.P.NO.51431/2013 BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE FIRST

¶34

¶35

WA No. 615 of 2018

¶36

RESPONDENT PASSED IN INA (CR 35/1998-1999 DATED 13/08/2012) BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DISTRICT i.e., RESPONDENT NO.1 AND REJECT THE CLAIM OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A IN W.P.NO.51431/2013 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY ALONG WITH COSTS.

¶37

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶38

JUDGMENT

¶39

This intra Court appeal has been filed by Karnataka State Board of Wakf (hereinafter referred to as "Board" for short) against the order dated 04.09.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the writ petition preferred by it, has been dismissed and the order dated 13.08.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru has been upheld.

¶40

One Budan Khan was recorded as owner of the land bearing Sy.No.33, measuring 2 acres 24 guntas situated at Hesaraghatta Viallage, Bengaluru Rural District (hereinafter referred to as "land in question"). The land in question was in cultivating possession of original respondent No.2 namely Sri. Channa Nanjappa. The land in question was

¶41

¶42

WA No. 615 of 2018

¶43

notified as Wakf property by virtue of Notification dated 07.06.1965 under Section 5(2) of the Wakf Act, 1954.

¶44

The aforesaid Channa Nanjappa filed an

¶45

application before the Competent Authority some time in the year 1979-80 seeking grant of occupancy right in respect of land in question as well as two other properties viz., land bearing Sy.No.142 and Sy.No.179/1 of Hesaraghatta Village. The Land Tribunal by an order dated 15.04.1982 rejected the claim of the said Channa Nanjappa in respect of land in question.

¶46

The aforesaid Late Sri. Channa Nanjappa thereupon filed a writ petition viz., W.P.No.25220/1982 which was transferred to the Land Reforms Appellate Authority. However, on abolition of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, writ petition was transferred to this Court and was registered as W.P.No.18947/1991. The Bench of this Court by an order dated 29.09.1997 allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dated 15.04.1982 passed by

¶47

¶48

WA No. 615 of 2018

¶49

the Land Tribunal and remanded the matter for fresh enquiry.

¶50

The Deputy Commissioner inspected the spot and drawn two mahazar. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner by an order dated 21.09.2000 granted the occupancy rights in favour of Late Sri. Channa Nanjappa in respect of land in question. The said order was challenged by the Board in writ petition viz., W.P.No.3311/2006. The Bench of this Court by an order dated 04.06.2010 allowed the writ petition and again remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner to decide the same afresh.

¶51

The Deputy Commissioner after the remand, once

¶52

again directed for spot inspection. The Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk inspected the spot and prepared the mahazar on 23.09.2010. The Deputy Commissioner by an order dated 13.08.2012 again granted occupancy rights in favour of Late Sri. Channa Nanjappa. The Board again challenged the said order in writ petition viz., W.P.No.51431/2013. The learned Single Judge by an order dated 04.09.2017 inter- alia held

¶53

¶54

WA No. 615 of 2018

¶55

that the entries made in the Record of Rights for the period from 1966-67 and 1991-92 show the name of Late Sri. Channa Nanjappa. It was further held that Late Sri. Channa Nanjappa was in cultivating possession of land in question. Accordingly, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner was upheld and the writ petition was dismissed. In the aforesaid factual background, this intra Court appeal has been filed.

¶56

7. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that the

¶57

land in question is a grave yard and was assigned in favour of the Board. It is further submitted that from the perusal of the Notification dated 07.06.1965 issued under Section 5(2) of the Walk Act, 1954, it is evident that land in question is a Walk property and therefore the occupancy rights in respect of property which belongs to Wakf could not have been granted in favour of the Channa Nanjappa. It is further submitted that property retains character as well to Wakf property forever and continued to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act. In support of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for appellant has placed reliance

¶58

¶59

WA No. 615 of 2018

¶60

on the judgment dated 28.01.1998 of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sayyed Ali and Ors. Vs. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad and Ors.

¶61

On the other hand learned counsel for respondent while inviting the attention of this Court to the material available on record has submitted that from 1966-67 till the relevant date i.e., 01.07.1970, the date on which the land in question vested with the Government as per the provisions of Mysuru (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and even thereafter late Sri.Channa Nanjappa was in possession of the land in question. It is further submitted that the entries made in revenue records is presumptive. Therefore, Deputy Commissioner rightly granted the occupancy right in favour of late Channa Nanjappa. It is further submitted that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is upheld.

¶62

We have considered the submissions made on behalf of both sides and perused the records.

¶63

¶64

WA No. 615 of 2018

¶65

Admittedly, late Channa Nanjappa was in

¶66

cultivating possession of land in question. The aforesaid fact is evident from the entries made in the revenue records. It appears that one Budan Khan made an endowment in respect of land in question in favour of the Wakf Board. Thereupon the land in question was notified as Wakf property by virtue of Notification dated 07.06.1965. Even after the endowment was created by the aforesaid Budan Khan in favour of the Board, late Channa Nanjappa continued to be in occupation as tenant. The rights of late Channa Nanjappa as tenant in respect of land in question did not extinguished on change of ownership. The land in question is notified as 'Devadaya' Inam Land.

¶67

Under the provisions of the Act, the land vested in the State Government. From the perusal of the revenue records, it is evident that even after 1970, late Channa Nanjappa continued in possession of land in question. Therefore, under Section 6 of the Act, late Channa Nanjappa became entitled to conferment of occupancy rights. The

¶68

¶69

WA No. 615 of 2018

¶70

Deputy Commissioner has rightly granted occupancy rights to Late Sri. Channa Nanjappa under the Act.

¶71

On the basis of the spot inspection conducted on 29.03.2010 and in view of the entries made in the revenue records, which reflect that Late Sri. Channa Nanjappa was in cultivating possession of land in question, has held that the entries made in the revenue records have presumptive value under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner has held that Late Sri. Channa Nanjappa was entitled to occupancy right under Section 6 of the Act. The aforesaid contention is based on the material available on record and by no stretch of imagination could be said to be perverse. The aforesaid finding of the fact have been confirmed by the learned Single Judge. The aforesaid concurrent findings of fact, therefore do not call for any interference in this intra Court appeal.

¶72

It is pertinent to note that issue of ownership of land is not involved in the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner. The only issue involved is whether or not late

¶73

10 -

¶74

WA No. 615 of 2018

¶75

Channa Nanjappa is entitled to occupancy rights under Section 6 of the Act has been adjudicated. Therefore, the fact that the aforesaid property has been notified as Wakf property has no relevance to the controversy involved in this appeal.

¶76