Allowed

Abdul Jaleel and Anr. v. the Regional Commissioner and Ors.

Karnataka HC22 Nov 2024WP/200168/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227. It held that the Revenue authorities violated natural justice and procedural laws by unilaterally entering the Wakf Board's name in the Revenue Records. The impugned entry was set aside, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned entry in Column No. 11 set aside; parties to receive notice and reconsider the matter; deletion of name within four weeks; proceedings to conclude within three months.

Abdul Jaleel and Anr. Vs the Regional… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:8729 WP No. 200168 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶3

KALABURAGI BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

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

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 200168 OF 2024 (KLR-RR/SUR)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

ABDUL JALEEL S/O GULAM RASOOL, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE, RESIDENCE OF H.NO. 31-16, NEAR MULLA MASJID ADILPUR, TALUKA SHAHAPUR,

¶10

DISTRICT YADGIRI.

¶11

Digitally signed by LUCYGRACE Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

FAIYAZ HUSSAIN S/O LATE ABDUL QAYYUM, AGE. ABOUT 69 YEARS, OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE, RESIDENCE OF H.NO. 16-41, NEAR MULLA MASJID ADILPUR, TALUKA SHAHAPUR, DISTRICT YADGIRI.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. GANESH NAIK, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER KALABURAGI, DISTRICT KALABURAGI.

¶17

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:8729 WP No. 200168 of 2024

¶19

DISTRICT YADGIRI.

¶20

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DISTRICT YADGIRI.

¶21

THE TAHASILDAR TALUKA SHAHAPUR, DISTRICT YADGIRI.

¶22

THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR TALUKA SHAHAPUR, DISTRICT YADGIRI.

¶23

THE KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF WAKFS DARULA A WAKF NO.6, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU-560052. REPRSENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(SRI. G.B.YADAV, HCGP FOR R1 TO R5; SRI. P.S.MALIPATIL, ADV. FOR R6)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, BY THE ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONERS PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ISSUE (A) A WRIT A MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 TO DELETE THE ILLEGAL ENTRIES IN COLUMN NO. 11 OF THE ROR PERTAINING TO THE LAND IN SY.NO.494/3 MEASURING 01 ACRES 25 GUNTAS AND ANOTHER MEASURING 01 ACRES 25 GUNTAS SITUATED IN KANYAKOLUR VILLAGE, TQ. SHAHAPUR DIST. YADGIRI ILLEGALLY ENTERING THE NAME OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT AUTHORITY IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:8729 WP No. 200168 of 2024

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)

¶32

Learned High Court Government Pleader is directed to

¶33

take notice for respondent Nos.1 to 5. Sri. P.S.Malipatil, learned counsel accepts notice for respondent No.6.

¶34

In this petition, the petitioners seek for the

¶35

following reliefs:

¶36

Issue a writ a mandamus directing the respondents No.1 to 3 to delete the illegal entries in column No.11 of the ROR pertaining to the land in Sy.No.494/3 measuring 01 acres 25 guntas and another measuring 01 acres 25 guntas situated in Kanyakolur village, tq. Shahapur dist. Yadgiri illegally entering the name of the 6th respondent authority in the interest of justice and equity.

¶37

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 to 5 and learned counsel for the respondent No.6 and perused the material on record.

¶38

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that under identical circumstances, the Judgments / orders of this Court in the cases of Chand Sab vs. State of Karnataka & others – W.P.No.202965/2022 dated 06.01.2023 and M.Ravindra Reddy vs. State of

¶39

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:8729 WP No. 200168 of 2024

¶40

Karnataka & others – W.P.No.200340/2021 dated

¶41

23.02.2021, this Court allowed the aforesaid petitions and

¶42

passed the following orders:-

¶43

ORDER PASSED IN W.P.No.202965/2022

¶44

“Heard Sri. Shivaputra S. Udabalkar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

¶45

In this petition, the petitioner seeking writ of mandamus to delete the name of Mojangiri Sunni Waqt Property, in column Nos.9 and 12 in the RTC marked at Annexure-C.

¶46

It is contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that without issuing any notice and without following procedure contemplated under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, the name of Mojangri Sunni Wagf Property, is ordered to be entered in column Nos.9 and 12 of RTC.

¶47

The learned Government Advocate would justify the order with reference to Circular dated 04.01.2010, which is produced in W.P.No.201590/2022.

¶48

It is needless to say that the Circular cannot Over-ride the provision of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. For effecting changes in the RTC the procedure contemplated under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, is to be followed. The said procedure is not followed. Notice is not issued to the petitioner before making changes in the RTC. The impugned entries are made behind the back of the petitioner.

¶49

Under these circumstances, the petition is allowed.

¶50

The respondents No.5 to 6 are directed to delete the name of the Mojangiri sunni Wagf Property in column Nos.9 and 12 of the RTC, within 10 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and to restore the entries as it stood earlier to impugned entry.

¶51

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:8729 WP No. 200168 of 2024

¶52

However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed the rights of the petitioner.

¶53

The respondent No.5 may initiate proceedings pursuant to Circular if so advised in law. In such an event, the respondent No.5 shall issue notice to the petitioner and respondents No.6 before passing further orders pursuant to Circular.”

¶54

ORDER PASSED IN W.P.NO.200340/2021

¶55

Sri.Mallikarjun Sahukar, learned HCGP accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 to 5.

¶56

Sri.P.S.Malipatil, learned counsel accepts notice for respondent No.6.

¶57

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for a certiorari to quash the extract of the mutation dated 19.09.2018 bearing MR No.H124 vide Annexures-D and D1 in respect of Sy.No.301/5 wherein respondent No.5Tahsildar has entered the name respondent No.6 – Wakf Board as also for a mandamus directing the respondent No.5 to delete the name of respondent No.6 in respect of aforesaid survey number from the record of rights and restore the name of the petitioner.

¶58

The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner in enjoyment and in actual possession of the land bearing Sy.No.301/5 measuring 2 acres 29 guntas situated at Manvi Village, Manvi Taluk, Raichur District. The aforesaid land had been granted to one Smt.Syeda Sajjada Peera W/o Wahid Quadri, under the provisions of Inams Abolition Act in the year 1982 as regards which Form No.II was issued on 20.03.1982. Thereafter, the said Smt.Syeda Sajjada Peera approached the Assistant Commissioner, Raichur for permission to sell the land which was granted vide Annexure-A dated 17.09.1991. In pursuance of which, the petitioner’s father purchased the aforesaid land by registered sale deed dated 19.09.1991 and the name of the petitioner’ father had been entered in the revenue records on 19.09.2018. Subsequent to the purchase, the name of the father of the petitioner was entered. After the death of the father of the petitioner,

¶59

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:8729 WP No. 200168 of 2024

¶60

the name of the petitioner came to be entered into in the revenue records in the year 2017.

¶61

Respondent No.2-Regional Commissioner has issued a office note relying on the government notification/circular directing the revenue authoritiesDeputy Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner and Wakf officer to enter the name of Wakf Board as owners of lands, which were notified as that belonging to the Wakf Board in the records of rights. On the basis of the said direction, respondent No.5-Tahsildar without issuing notice unilaterally entered the name of the Wakf Board in the year 2011 of the records of rights. It is aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶62

Sri.Mahantesh Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no such right vested with the respondents to insert the name of the respondent No.6 – Wakf Board.

¶63

Sri.P.S.Malipatil, learned counsel for respondent No.6 would submit that the entry has been made in terms of notification issued in the year 1974 recognising the Wakf to be the owner of the property and as such, by following the procedure under Rule 6 and Rule 7 of the Karnataka Wakf Rules, 2017, the name of the respondent No.6 Wakf Board was mutated and entered into the records of rights. As such, what has been done is correct and proper.

¶64

Sri.Mallikarjun Sahukar, learned HCGP submits that the Tahsildar has acted in terms of office note issued by respondent No.2-Regional Commissioner who has in turn acted on notification of the year 1974 and Rule 6 and Rule 7 of Karnataka Wakf Rules, 2017.

¶65

Heard Sri.Mahantesh Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Mallikarjun Sahukar, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Sri.P.S.Malipatil, learned counsel for respondent No.6 and perused the papers.

¶66

The petitioner claims that the land has been granted to Smt.Syeda Sajjada Peera in the year 1973-74 and her name was entered in the revenue records

¶67

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:8729 WP No. 200168 of 2024

¶68

whereas the Wakf Board claims that they are the owners of the land in terms of the notification issued in the year 1974. On the basis of this claim and counter claim as regards ownership of the land, there is a dispute between the parties.

¶69

In this background on basis of the notification of the year 1974, the Wakf Board wrote a letter to the respondent No.5 – Tahsildar to enter the name of the Wakf Board in the revenue records and Tahsildar acting on the said request has made the said entry along with the name of the petitioner whose name was already found in the revenue records in Column 11.

¶70

The Karnataka Land Revenue Act provides for a mode and methodology for making entries, carrying out mutation, etc., in the revenue records. One of the cardinal rules being that if any person’s name to be effected in the revenue records or for any change in the revenue records, notice has to be issued and principles of natural justice has to be followed and the said party has to be heard and thereafter orders to be passed.

¶71

In the present case, all these aspects has been violated merely because the Wakf Board has sent a request to the respondent No.5 to enter the name of the Walkf Board in Column 11. Such a process and procedure is unknown to law. Once a name of the third party is entered in the revenue records, if the Wakf Board seeks to get its name in the records, the Wakf Board is required to follow the process and procedure under the Land Revenue Act including Section 136 of the said Act. Further more, the Tahsildar is required to follow the procedure under Rule 128 and 129 of the Land Revenue Rules before making any change. None of these are followed in the present case.

¶72

There is highhandedness in the matter in which Wakf Board wrote a letter to the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar has blindly considered the request of the Wakf Board and acted on.

¶73

In view thereof and since there is a serious lapse of procedural aspect, a certiorari is issued quashing the order dated 19.09.2018 inserting the name of the Wakf Board in Column 11 of the records of rights.

¶74

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:8729 WP No. 200168 of 2024

¶75

Consequently, a mandamus is issued directing the respondent No.5-Tahsildar, Manvi to delete the name of respondent No.6 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Liberty is reserved to respondent No.6-Wakf Board to follow the applicable law and due procedure of law if at all it has any right, title or interest in the said property for inserting of the name in the Records of Rights.

¶76

Learned HCGP is directed to communicate this order to the Regional Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner and Tahsildar within the jurisdiction of this Court so that these kind of orders are not passed putting innocent parties at risk behind their back.

¶77

Accordingly, the Writ petition is allowed.”

¶78

The aforesaid orders passed by this Court in Chand

¶79

Sab’s case and M.Ravindra Reddy’s case supra, are directly and squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case and consequently, the present petition also deserves to be allowed and disposed of in terms of the orders passed in the aforesaid petitions.

¶80

It is also relevant to state that though the name of

¶81

the petitioners appears in Column Nos. 9 and 12 of their respective RTCs in relation to the respective subject lands, respondent Nos.2 to 5 have purported to insert the name of respondent No.6 in Column No.11, without notifying or providing sufficient or reasonable opportunity to the

¶82

9 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:8729 WP No. 200168 of 2024

¶83

petitioners, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the alleged entry in Column No.11 showing the name of the respondent No.6 deserves to be set aside and the matter be remitted back to respondent Nos.3 and 4 for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.

¶84

In the result, I pass the following:-

¶85

ORDER

¶86

(i) Petition is hereby allowed and disposed of in terms of the orders passed by this Court in the cases of Chand Sab vs. State of Karnataka & others – W.P.No.202965/2022 dated 06.01.2023 and M.Ravindra Reddy vs. State of Karnataka & others – W.P.No.200340/2021

¶87

dated 23.02.2021.

¶88

(ii) The impugned entry in Column No.11 showing the name of the respondent No.6 in relation to the subject lands bearing Survey No.494/3, measuring 1 acre 25 guntas and

¶89

10 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:8729 WP No. 200168 of 2024

¶90

another measuring 1 acres 25 guntas, situated at Kanyakolur village, taluk Shahapur, district Yadgir, is hereby set aside.

¶91

(iii) The matter is remitted back to

¶92

respondent Nos.2 to 5 for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.

¶93

(iv) Respondent Nos.2 to 5 shall notify the petitioners and respondent No.6 and reconsider the matter afresh after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to all the parties and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶94

(v) Respondent Nos.2 to 5 are directed to delete the name of respondent No.6 in Column No.11 of the RTCs in relation to the subject land within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶95

(vi) Respondent Nos.2 to 5 are directed to conclude the proceedings within a period of three

¶96