Allowed

Haji Usmangani Humnabad v. Karnataka State Board of Auqaf

Karnataka HC17 Feb 2023WP/100521/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition seeking quashing of an order appointing an administrator to a Wakf institution. The Court set aside the appointment on the ground that the Board failed to consider the petitioner's proposal for a new committee of management prior to the appointment. The matter was remitted to the respondents for reconsideration of the proposal, with rival content

What did the court decide?

Impugned order appointing the administrator was set aside; matter remitted to respondents for reconsideration of the petitioner's proposal for a committee of management.

Haji Usmangani Humnabad Vs Karnataka State Board of Auqaf — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - WP No. 100521 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 100521/2023 (GM-WAKF)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

HAJI USMANGANI HUMNABAD, PRESIDENT, HAJARATH SYED SHAH URTUJA QUADRI DARGAH, MANAGING COMMITTEE, ILKAL, TALUK-ILKAL, BAGALKOT-587 125.

¶9

PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. BIRADAR SHOUKATALI USMANPATEL, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF AUQAF, DARULAWKAF, NO. 6, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU-560 052, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶13

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF AUQAF, DARULAWKAF, NO.6, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURUR-560 0052.

¶14

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad

¶15

THE DISTRICT WAQF OFFICER, DIST. WAQF ADVISORY COMMITTEE, BAGALKOT DIST., MOULANA AZAD MINORITY BHAWAN, NAVANAGARA, BAGALKOT-587 103.

¶16

SHRI ABDUL RAJAK KALAL S/O BALESABKALAL, ADMINISRATOR, HAZRATH SYED SHAH MURTUZA, KHADRIDARGAH, ILKAL TOWN, BAGALKOT DIST.-587 125.

¶17

RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MOHEMMED ALI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3, SRI M.C. HUKKERI, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED 21.01.2023 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 & ETC.

¶19

¶20

WP No. 100521 of 2023

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

In this writ petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned order at Annexure-A dated 21.01.2022 passed by the respondent No.1-Karnataka State Board of Auqaf whereby the respondent No.4 was appointed as Administrator of the subject Wakf Institution.

¶24

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respective respondents and perused the material on record including the impugned order.

¶25

In addition to reiterating the various contentions as raised in the memorandum of writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner invites my attention to the proposal submitted by the petitioner at Annexure-H dated 02.08.2022 to the respondent No.3 requesting approval of the managing committee for a period of five years. It is also pointed out that pursuant to the said proposal being sent, the third respondent issued a public notice on 06.08.2022 calling for objections. In addition to other contentions, it is the grievance of the petitioner that despite petitioner submitted the aforesaid

¶26

¶27

WP No. 100521 of 2023

¶28

proposal seeking constitution of a committee, the respondent No.1Board has proceeded to unilaterally appoint an administrator without providing any opportunity to the petitioner nor considering or passing appropriate orders/ taking appropriate decision on the said proposal and as such the impugned Annexure-A deserves to be set aside.

¶29

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submit that having regard to the undisputed fact that the term of management of the Committee of the petitioner came to an end/ expired on 05.08.2022, the question of petitioner continuing with the management of the subject Wakf Institution does not arise and consequently the respondent No.1 was fully justified in appointing the Administrator in terms of the impugned order which does not warrant interference by this Court in the present petition.

¶30

Though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims with regard to the material on record as well as the provisions of the Wakf Act, 1995, a perusal of the impugned order will indicate that there is no reference to the proposal at Annexure-H submitted by the petitioner being rejected prior to passing the impugned order and consequently without

¶31

¶32

WP No. 100521 of 2023

¶33

expressing any opinion on the merits/ demerits of the rival contentions, on the short ground that the proposal of the petitioner dated 02.08.2022 for formation of a committee of management for a further period of five years has not been considered nor the same has been rejected prior to passing the impugned order, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order at Annexure-A deserves to be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the respondent No.1 for reconsideration of the aforesaid proposal in accordance with law, within a stipulated time frame.

¶34

In the result, I pass the following order.

¶35

ORDER

¶36

i) Writ Petition is allowed;

¶37

ii) Impugned order at Annexure-A dated 21.01.2022 passed by the respondent No.1 is set aside;

¶38

iii) Matter is remitted back to the concerned respondents No.1 to 3 for reconsideration of the proposal at Annexure-J dated 02.08.2022 submitted by the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders/ take appropriate decision on the same in accordance with law;

¶39

¶40

WP No. 100521 of 2023

¶41

iv) Petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent No.1Board and submit pleadings, documents, etc. if any, on 01.03.2023 pursuant to which the respondent No.1-Board shall proceed further and take appropriate decision/ appropriate orders in accordance with law on or before 08.03.2023;

¶42

v) All rival contentions are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.

¶43

In view of disposal of the petition, all pending IAs do not survive for consideration and accordingly they stand disposed off.

¶44

SD JUDGE

¶45

BVV

¶46

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 72

Haji Usmangani Humnabad v. Karnataka State Board of Auqaf

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haji Usmangani Humnabad v. Karnataka State Board of Auqaf

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. Ravikumar S/O Vasudev Kammar Vs Smt. Natalin W/O Francis D Souza

Sadiqali S/O Budansab Negalur Vs the Deputy Commissioner

M/S. Swamy Agro Impliments Vs the Manager

Umesh S/O Shivaputrappa Vs North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation

Sri Shambulingaiah Since Dead by His Lrs Shakuntalamma W/O Late Sri Shambulingaiah Vs B Nagarudra Gouda S/O Veerabhadra Gouda

Edigara Santosh S/O E. Nagendrappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner