The court dismissed a writ petition challenging the mutation of a Wakf property in revenue records from Jamia Masjid to an individual. The court held petitioners lack locus standi to question the order on merit because the Junction Masjid was not impleaded or heard, restricting disposal to this procedural ground only.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7276 WP No. 102951 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 102951 OF 2014 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAVI.
TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAVI.
VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI MKANKUPPI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad
TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAVI.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SABEEL AHMED, ADVOCATE FOR SRI A.S. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V. SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1, 2, 3, 5 & 6; SRI SANTOSH B. MULAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE
WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.11.2012 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN NO.TA PUMSA:MELMANAVI: IVA.07/12-13/676 AS PER ANNEXURE-Q; WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NO.2 & 3 TO RESTORE THE NAME OF THE JAMIA MASJID OR JAMIA MASJID COMMITTEE IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY BEARING NO.467B MEASURING 35 X 20 FEET SITUATED AT INAMHONGAL VILLAGE OF SAUNDATTI TALUK.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard learned counsel Sri Sabeel Ahmed, appearing for Sri A.S.Patil, learned counsel for petitioners and learned counsel Sri V.Shivaraj Hiremath, appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 so also learned counsel Sri Santosh B. Malagoudar, appearing for respondent No.4.
Inamhongal. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent mutating the name of respondent No.4 in the revenue records with regard to property bearing Gram Panchayat No.467/B measuring 35 feet X 20 feet at Inamhongal village of Saundatti Taluka is bad in law and illegal and same requires to be set aside and quashed.
a Resolution in No.4/22 dated 15.09.1998 resolving to show the name of Chairman of the Jamia Masjid Committee in respect of property in question. It is also contended that the later on the said property came to be registered as Wakf property and the copy of certificate has been produced as per Annexure-E. The petitioners, who are residents of the Inamhongal village have been offering their prayers in the Masjid and are managing the said property and petitioner No.4 has been appointed as Secretary of Wakf committee constituted for management
of the Wakf property. This being the facts and circumstances of the case, the 4th respondent who is no
way concerned with the property in question appears to have got entered his name pertaining to the said property deleting the name of Jamia Masjid pursuant to 1988-89. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that at the time of deleting the name of Jamia Masjid or entering the name of respondent No.4 in the revenue records no notice has been issued to the petitioners or to the any members of the said Jamia Masjid in whose name earlier the property existed before the 2nd respondent/Authority i.e., Executive Officer, Taluka Panchayat, Saundatti. The said Jamia Masjid was not made as a party and therefore proper person is not made as a party in the proceedings before the 2nd respondent. Hence, the impugned order is bad in law and deserves to be quashed.
petitioners that their names were entered earlier to the name mutated in favour of respondent No.4. Even according to the petitioner, the property earlier existed in the name of Jamia Masjid, which admittedly is not the party to this writ petition. Though, petitioner No.4 is shown as Secretary of Jamia Masjid, but no document is placed before the Court with regard to constitution and working of the committee of Jamia Masjid. Under the circumstances, he contends that this petition lacks bonafides and same deserves to be dismissed.
have locus to challenge the order passed by the 2nd respondent in favour of respondent No.4. However, in view of the fact that the order passed by the 2nd respondent entering the name of respondent No.4 without making the Jamia Masjid as party would not entitle the petitioner to question the order. However, liberty is reserved to the aggrieved party to challenge the same before the forum known to law. Accordingly, I pass the following :
ORDER
(i) Petition is dismissed as the petitioners do
not have locus to challenge the order passed by the 2nd respondent in favour of respondent No.4 dated
15.11.2012
(ii) However, the concerned party aggrieved would be at liberty to challenge the order passed by the 2nd respondent in the forum known to law and if such application is filed, same shall be considered in accordance with law.
Sd/JUDGE
CKK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioners have locus standi to challenge the mutation order passed in favour of respondent No.4 regarding a Wakf property where the Jamia Masjid was not made a party.
Whether the mutation entry in the name of respondent No.4 deleting the name of Jamia Masjid can be quashed by petitioners.
Moula Naik S/O. Babasaheb Rasoolnnavar
Imamsaheb S/O. Hussainsaheb Torgal
Imamhussain S/O. Ismail Mulla
Vijayalakshmi M Kankuppi
Akbarsaheb S/O. Hussainsaheb Tamboli
The Zilla Panchayat, Belgaum District
Pradeep Singh Yerur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
