Dismissed

Sri. M.Ansar Baig v. Karnataka State Board of Auqaf

Karnataka HC15 Oct 2024WP/100010/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash the issuance of an Official Memorandum and notification for conducting elections and appointing an Administrator for a Sunni Dargah. The court held the petitioner lacked locus standi as his claim to hereditary mutawalli status was previously negatived in an earlier writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; liberty to revive the original civil suit denied.

Sri. M.Ansar Baig Vs Karnataka State Board… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14937 WP No. 100010 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶3

DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 100010 OF 2023 (GM-WAKF)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. M. ANSAR BAIG, S/O. SRI. USMAN BAIG, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, HEREDITARY MUTAWALLI, HAZRATH MAQDOOM JANI DARGAH (SUNNI), NEAR SANGAM TALKIES, BALLARI-583101, BALLARI DISTRICT.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. KARTIK GANACHARI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

MANJANNA E

¶14

Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶15

KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF AUQAF, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, “DARUL AWAKF”, NO.6, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE-560052.

¶16

THE ENROLMENT OFFICER/ AUTHORISED OFFICER, HAZRATH MAQDOOM JANI DARGAH (SUNNI), NEAR SANGAM TALKIES, BALLARI-583101, BALLARI DISTRICT.

¶17

THE DISTRICT WAQF OFFICER, DISTRICT WAQF ADVISORY COMMITTEE, BALLARI DISTRICT, BALLARI-583101.

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14937 WP No. 100010 of 2023

¶19

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

¶20

CUM ADMINISTRATOR,

¶21

BALLARI DISTRICT, HAZRATH MAQDOOM JANI DARGAH (SUNNI), NEAR SANGAM TALKIES, BALLARI-583101, BALLARI DISTRICT.

¶22

THE TAHSILDAR CUM ELECTION OFFICER, BALLARI TALUK, HAZRATH MAQDOOM JANI DARGAH (SUNNI), NEAR SANGAM TALKIES, BALLARI-583101, BALLARI DISTRICT.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SMT. ANURADHA S.R., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR R1-R5; SRI. SYED IMRAN, ADV. & SRI. SYED MATHEEN PASHA, ADV. & SRI. RANGANATHA P.N., ADV. FOR R1-R5; SRI. D.L. LADKHAN, ADV. FOR R4)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO

¶26

i. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM/ORDER DATED 05.04.2022 BEARING NO.KSBA/MSC/107/BLY/2018-19 ISSUED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND THE NOTIFICATION DATED 20.04.2022 BEARING NO.MAS/01/EMRL/BLY/2021-22 ISSUED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS THERETO, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶27

ii. DECLARE BY ISSUE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION THAT THE ACTION OF 1^ST RESPONDENT TO CONTINUE HAZRATH MAQDOOM JANI DARGH (SUNNI) NEAR SANGAM TALKIES, BALLARI UNDER DIRECT MANAGEMENT AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD OF 5 YEARS (01.10.2021) FROM 01.10.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-G IS TOTALLY ILLEGAL AND CONTRARY TO SEC.65(1) OF THE

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14937 WP No. 100010 of 2023

¶29

WAQF ACT 1995, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶30

iii. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE 1^ST RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 08.02.2021, 14.10.2021 & 18.04.2022 VIDE ANNEXURES ‘P’, ‘P1’ AND ‘S’ SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS EXPEDITIOUSLY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

¶31

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

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)

¶34

Heard learned counsel Sri Kartik Ganachari for

¶35

petitioner and learned senior counsel Smt.Anuradha S.R., on behalf of learned counsel Sri Sayed Imran appearing for respondents No.1 to 5 so also learned counsel Sri D.L.Ladkhan appearing for respondent No.4.

¶36

This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the impugned Official Memorandum/Order dated 05.04.2022 passed by the 1^st respondent vide Annexure-A and the notification dated 20.04.2022 issued by the 2^nd respondent vide Annexure-B and for other reliefs as sought for in the petition.

¶37

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14937 WP No. 100010 of 2023

¶38

The sum and substance of arguments of learned

¶39

counsel for the petitioner are that respondent No.1 was appointed as the Enrolment Officer and Election Officer to enrol the members and conduct election to appoint a committee of management to the Hazrath Maqdoom Jani Baba Dargah (Sunni), near Sangam Talkies Ballari, in which the petitioner is a ‘Hereditary Mutawalli’ and the same is contrary to the provisions of Waqf Act, 1995 (for short, ‘the Act, 1995’) on the ground that the committee of management cannot be appointed to a Dargah and more so, when a hereditary mutawalli is appointed and having not been removed in the manner known to law by the respondents.

¶40

It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner’s great grandfather Sri Khadar Baig had bequeathed the land to the aforementioned Dargah and on his death, his son Sri Mansoor Baig became the ‘mutawalli. After the death of Sri Mansoor Baig, the petitioner’s father Sri Usman Baig and

¶41

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14937 WP No. 100010 of 2023

¶42

petitioner’s uncle Sri M.Basith Baig became the mutawallis and pursuant to the death of Sri Mansoor Baig, petitioner’s father unable to carry on the duties, had requested the 1^st respondent to appoint the petitioner as a ‘mutawalli’. Accordingly, the 1^st respondent-Karnataka State Board of Wakf had passed an order dated 21.02.2008 appointing the petitioner as a ‘mutawalli’ of Hazrath Maqdoom Jani Dargah (Sunni) for a period of 3 years from 21.02.2008, which expired on 20.02.2011. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the 1^st respondent passed an order dated 22.02.2011 appointing the petitioner as the ‘mutawalli’ of Hazrath Maqdoom Jani Dargah until further orders and subject to the condition of outcome of the enquiry which is pending before the 1^st respondent. Thereafter, on the same day, the 1^st respondent having realised that a mistake had crept in the order dated 22.02.2011, issued a Corrigendum, dated 22.02.2011 deleting the words ‘until further orders’ in the earlier order dated 22.02.2011 and confirmed the petitioner as a ‘Hereditary Mutawalli’.

¶43

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14937 WP No. 100010 of 2023

¶44

It is also the case of petitioner that he had filed suit in O.S.No.2/2016 before the Wakf Tribunal, Kalaburgi seeking for a declaration that Hazrath Maqdoom Jani Dargah (Sunni) and Maqdhoom Jhani Masjid measuring to an extent of 200 X 200 square feet belongs to Hazrath Maqdoom Jani Dargah (Sunni) and direct the Karnataka State Board of Wakf to declare the petitioner as a ‘hereditary mutawalli’ of Hazrath Maqdoom Jani Dargah (Sunni). This being the state of affairs, the 1^st respondent had passed a Resolution dated 16.08.2016 assuming the aforementioned Dargah under the direct management and also passed an order dated 01.10.2016 appointing the Deputy Commissioner, Bellary District as an Administrator. The petitioner had filed a Revision Petition No.10/2016 before the State Government challenging the order assuming direct management. The said revision petition came to be dismissed. Thereafter, petitioner had filed a Writ Petition No.161/2017 challenging the aforementioned orders dated 16.08.2016, 01.10.2016 and 19.12.2016. This Court allowed the said writ petition setting aside the

¶45

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14937 WP No. 100010 of 2023

¶46

order dated 19.12.2016 passed in Revision Petition No.10/2016 and remanded the matter to the revisional authority for reconsideration.

¶47

It is further contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that on dismissal of revision petition by the State Government, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.103734/2017, whereby this Court had observed that the whole claim of petitioner is based on the assertion of being hereditary mutawalli and same was pending in O.S.No.2/2016 and held that the writ petition would not be maintainable accordingly, dismissed the writ petition. An appeal came to be filed challenging the order dated 22.02.2018. The said appeal also came to be dismissed. The petitioner filed a memo dated 15.12.2020 seeking for withdrawal of the suit in O.S.No.2/2016 before the Wakf Tribunal, Kalaburgi. Thereafter, submitted a representation dated 08.02.2021 to the respondents intimating withdrawal of the suit and to recognise the petitioner as

¶48

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14937 WP No. 100010 of 2023

¶49

hereditary mutawalli and accordingly sought the Karnataka

¶50

State Wakf Board not to continue the Administrator.

¶51

Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation on 14.10.2021 to the 1^st respondent objecting to an official Memorandum dated 30.09.2021 issued by the 1^st respondent, whereby the Enrolment Officer and Election Officer were being appointed to enrol members and conduct election to the committee of management of Hazrath Maqdoom Jani Dargah (Sunni). since, there was no response by the committee of management, petitioner filed another representation on 07.04.2022 to the Statement Government objecting to the official memorandum dated 05.04.2022 and thereafter several representations were made by the petitioner to the State Government contending that action initiated by the respondents are illegal and opposed to law and thereafter he has filed the present petition questioning the issuance of Annexures-A and B and to quash the official

¶52

9 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14937 WP No. 100010 of 2023

¶53

memorandum and notification issued by the 1^st respondent

¶54

and 2^nd respondent at Annexures-A and B respectively.

¶55

Respondents have filed their statement of objections. Primarily, it is the contention of respondents that the present petition is not maintainable and the petitioner does not have locus to question the issuance of Official Memorandum for conducting the elections to the Dargah and for appointment of Enrolment Officer and Election Officer of the Dargah so also the issuance of notification for enrolment of General Body members to the management of Dargah.

¶56

It is the contention of learned senior counsel Smt. Anuradha representing respondents No.1 to 5 that petitioner has filed several round of litigations agitating the very same issue, claiming ‘Hereditary Mutawalli’ over the Dargah, which came to be negatived by the order dated 22.02.2018 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.103734/2017 and the same on challenge made by the petitioner before the Division Bench of this Court also

¶57

10 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14937 WP No. 100010 of 2023

¶58

came to be dismissed confirming the orders passed by this

¶59

Court in the aforementioned writ petition.

¶60

It is needless to mention that in the aforementioned writ petition also the petitioner has taken a similar contention with regard to petitioner being hereditary mutawalli over the Dargah mentioned hereinabove and that he could not have been removed without initiating appropriate enquiry and therefore there is violation of Section 64 of the Act, 1995. No doubt, the petition came to be dismissed on the ground that petitioner had initiated the suit in O.S.No.2/2016 before the Wakf Tribunal raising similar grounds and claiming hereditary mutawalliship over the Dargah. As on date of dismissal of the petition, the suit in question was pending. However, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that suit was also withdrawn by him. Subsequently, the dismissal of writ petition was again challenged by the petitioner before the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.100174/2018 which came to

¶61

11 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14937 WP No. 100010 of 2023

¶62

be dismissed and confirmed the order passed by the coordinate bench of this Court, whereby this Court had held that the only question raised by the petitioner was on the ground that his claim over the Dargah to be on the basis on his assertion of being hereditary mutawalli. This aspect has been considered by the coordinate bench of

¶63

this Court at paragraph No.21 in the Writ Petition No.103734/2017, the petitioner was given liberty to raise all these grounds by way of alternative efficacious remedy in the civil suit in O.S.Nos.2 and 10 of 2016.

¶64

The other contention raised by the learned senior counsel is that the petitioner would not fall within the category of Section 64 of the Act, 1995 for the simple reason that petitioner was not a hereditary mutawalli and it was neither recognised by the Wakf Board. Under the circumstances, the question of petitioner coming within the purview of Section 64 of the Act, 1995 would not arise and question of issuance of notice or enquiry also consequently would not arise because respondents Nos.1

¶65

12 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14937 WP No. 100010 of 2023

¶66

to 5 do not recognise the petitioner to be the hereditary mutawalli and so also in the earlier round of litigation before this Court in Writ Petition No.103734/2017 hereinabove mentioned the said fact has been clearly negatived by this Court.

¶67

If at all the petitioner has any grievance with regard to being a hereditary mutawalliship, he was given liberty to agitate the same in the suit which was pending as on the date of disposal of earlier writ petition. Presently, the question in dispute is with regard to issuance of Official Memorandum and notification issued by the 1^st and 2^nd respondents at Annexures-A and B respectively, whereby the 2^nd respondent has initiated proceedings for appointment of Enrolment Officer and Election Officer of Hazrath Maqdoom Jani Dargah (Sunni) of Ballari district and to enrol members to the management committee to Hazrath Maqdoom Jani Dargah (Sunni) of Ballari.

¶68

13 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14937 WP No. 100010 of 2023

¶69

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned senior counsel for respondents No.1 to 5, it is apparently clear that the petitioner does not have locus to question the issuance of Official Memorandum and notification at Annexures-A and B respectively with regard to appointment of Administrator, Enrolment Officer for conducting the elections to the General Body to the management committee of Dargah. If at all the petitioner has any grievance he will have to agitate in the manner known to law before the appropriate forum.

¶70

The question of hereditary mutawalliship has already been decided by this Court in the earlier round of litigation in Writ Petition No.103734/2017 and even assuming that the petitioner’s father held post of hereditary mutawalliship at one point of time the same was for a fixed period of 3 years, which also expired and hence question of petitioners staking any claim to spoil the

¶71

14 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14937 WP No. 100010 of 2023

¶72

proceedings initiated by the respondents cannot be

¶73

sustainable and it is bereft of merits.

¶74

This petition is devoid of merits, accordingly, it is dismissed.

¶75

Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage seeks liberty to revive the original suit filed by him. This Court is not inclined to accept such a submission as nothing prevented the petitioner from proceeding with the suit as in the earlier round of writ petition, liberty was given to him to redress his remedy in the alternative efficacious forum, i.e. in the suit which was already pending as on the date of disposal of earlier writ petition. If at all the petitioner is otherwise entitled, subject to the law of limitation, it is open for him to explore avenues in the manner known to law.

¶76

Accordingly ordered.

¶77

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶78

CKK CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

Sri. M.Ansar Baig v. Karnataka State Board of Auqaf

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. M.Ansar Baig 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Srikrishnadevaraya Hacheries Pvt. Ltd. Vs Gulbarga Electricity Supply Company

Shri Prashant Ravindranath Nayak Vs the State of Karnataka

Maruti Devappa Naik Vs Union of India

Yashvant S/O Basavantappa Soraganvi Vs Shivashakti Souhard Pattin Sahakari Niyamit

Yashvant S/O Basavantappa Soraganvi Vs Shivashakti Souhard Pattin Sahakari Niyamit

Sri Ramesh B.H.T. S/O Basavarajappa Vs Occupier