Dismissed

Syed Khaleem v. the District Wakf Committee

Karnataka HC6 Mar 2024CRP/323/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka dismissed a Civil Revision Petition filed by plaintiffs seeking declaration of ownership over property notified as Wakf in 1965. The Court held that once notified, the property vests in the Wakf Board, barring declaratory suits without prior legal challenge within permissible time limits.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition against the Tribunal's order dismissing the plaintiffs' suit for declaration of ownership and injunction is dismissed.

Syed Khaleem Vs the District Wakf Committee — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:9586 CRP No. 323 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 323 OF 2013

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SYED KHALEEM, S/O LATE SYED BASHU, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT KURUBARAPALYA, MULBAGAL - 563 131, KOLAR DISTRICT.

¶9

SYED SHABEER, S/O LATE SYED PYARU, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT KURUBARAPALYA, MULBAGAL - 563 131, KOLAR DISTRICT.

¶10

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

PRAYEJUAN, W/O SYED AKBAR, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT KURUBARAPALYA, MULBAGAL - 563 131, KOLAR DISTRICT.

¶12

MUBEEN TAJ, D/O. LATE SYED AKBAR, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT KURUBARAPALYA, MULBAGAL - 563 131, KOLAR DISTRICT.

¶13

SHABEEN TAJ, D/O LATE SYED AKBAR, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT KURUBARAPALYA,

¶14

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:9586 CRP No. 323 of 2013

¶15

MULBAGAL - 563 131, KOLAR DISTRICT.

¶16

SYED AKRAM, S/O SYED AKBAR, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT KURUBARAPALYA, MULBAGAL - 563 131, KOLAR DISTRICT.

¶17

…PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SRI. D.MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND:

¶20

THE DISTRICT WAKF COMMITTEE, KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR - 563 101.

¶21

KARNATAKA WAKF BOARD CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001, (REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)

¶22

THE MASJID-E-AZAM, NO.620, THATIPALYA, MULBAGAL TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101, (REPRESENTED BY ITS MUTAWALLI)

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. MOHAMMED TIPPU SULTAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;

¶25

SRI. NAVEED AHMED, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶26

THIS CRP IS FILED U/S.83(9) OF THE WAKF ACT 1995 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 6.2.2013 PASSED IN O.S.NO.4/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE HOLDING CONCURRENT CHARGE OF

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:9586 CRP No. 323 of 2013

¶28

PRESIDING OFFICER, KARNATAKA WAKF TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE DIVISION, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERPETUAL INJUNCTION.

¶29

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

¶30

ORDER

¶31

The plaintiffs are the revision petitioners.

¶32

The plaintiffs instituted a suit seeking a declaration

¶33

that they were the owners in possession of the suit schedule property, and also for grant of an injunction of the suit schedule property in respect of the land bearing Sy No.782/2, measuring 2 acres, 33 guntas.

¶34

Before the Tribunal, the Wakf Board entered appearance and contested the suit by stating that the suit property in question had been notified as a Wakf property by publication of notification in the gazette on 21.07.1965, and in light of this notification, the plaintiffs would not be entitled for a decree of declaration.

¶35

It was also contended by the Wakf Board that an

¶36

entry had been obtained in the revenue proceedings by the petitioners/ plaintiffs and the said order was set aside

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:9586 CRP No. 323 of 2013

¶39

by the Assistant Commissioner and also confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner, and by this Court in WP No.41811/2004. It was therefore, contended that the suit for declaration was not tenable.

¶40

The Tribunal, on consideration of the pleadings and the evidence adduced before it, came to the conclusion that the 1^st plaintiff Sri.Syed Kalim who deposed as PW.1 himself admitted that he came to know about the Gazette Notification in the year 2000 itself and yet, the suit was filed in the year 2007.

¶41

The Tribunal took the view that since there was a Gazette Notification of the year 1965, the suit was hit by Section 6 of the Wakf Act, more so when the suit was not filed within a year and the notification was challenged.

¶42

The Tribunal also took note of the fact that apart from the revenue entries which were set aside by the Assistant Commissioner and confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner and also by this Court, there was no other document of title in favour of the petitioners.

¶43

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:9586 CRP No. 323 of 2013

¶44

The Tribunal has also taken note of the fact that though the plaintiffs contended that they were in adverse possession, the plaintiffs were not even able to state the boundaries of the suit property and it was therefore clear that the essential ingredients of adverse possession had not at all been established.

¶45

In my view, since there is a Gazette Notification of the year 1965 notifying the suit property as a Gazette property, the petitioners/plaintiffs would not be entitled for a declaration that they were the owners of the property. Counsel for the petitioners, however, argued that there was no evidence that the property was endowed as a Wakf property and the limitation would start from the date of dismissal of the writ petition, since this Court granted them liberty to approach the Wakf Tribunal.

¶46

In my view, this argument cannot be accepted because it is settled law that once a property is notified as a Wakf property, by publication of notification in the Gazette, the property stands vested in the Wakf Board and

¶47

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:9586 CRP No. 323 of 2013

¶48

unless the same is challenged in a manner known to law and within the time permissible, the plaintiffs cannot seek a declaration that they are the owners.

¶49

As far as the argument that the suit had been filed within one year of dismissal of the petition is concerned, this argument also cannot be accepted. It is to be noticed here that once time begins to run, the same would not be stopped merely because revenue proceedings were initiated by the petitioners. It is to be noticed here that cause of action for filing the suit was the publication of the notification and not the initiation of the revenue proceedings, which culminated in an order passed in WP No.41811/2004 and thus there is no merit in the revision, and the petition is therefore, dismissed .

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

RMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24 CT:SNN

Syed Khaleem v. the District Wakf Committee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Khaleem v. the District Wakf Committee

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

G K Prasanna Vs the Chairman and Managing Director

Mr. Kishore Kumar S N Vs Mr. Narasimha Prasad T K

Sri K Hanumantharayappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Karnataka Bank Ltd., Vs Sri. Rajashekar. J

Smt Haseena Begum Vs State of Karnataka

The Project Director Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer and Competent Authority