Partly allowed

Jashed Pasha v. Karnataka State Board of Wakf

Karnataka HC13 Mar 2024WP/34914/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a Wakf Board notice claiming property as Wakf property. Court held the notice was unsustainable as the Board lacked jurisdiction to determine title without prior notification, directing the matter to the Wakf Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notice dated 21-07-2015 quashed; liberty reserved to the Wakf Board to approach the Wakf Tribunal under Section 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995.

Jashed Pasha Vs Karnataka State Board of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:10325 WP No. 34914 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 34914 OF 2015 (GM-WAKF)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

JAMSHED PASHA S/O SUBAN SAB AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDENT OF ALAKAPURA VILLAGE, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, THONDEBAVI POST, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT – 561 213.

¶7

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶8

ABDULLA S/O KHADER SAB AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS RESIDENT OF ALAKAPURA VILLAGE, NEAR RAILWAY STATION THONDEBAVI HOBLI THONDEBAVI POST, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT – 561 213.

¶9

…PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SRI ZAMEER PASHA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF WAKF HAVING ITS OFFICE AT "DARUL- AWKAF”,

¶13

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:10325 WP No. 34914 of 2015

¶14

NO.6, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU - 52 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SMT.SWATHI ASHOK, ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DTD:21.07.2015 ISSUED AND THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE RESPONDENT KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF WAKF HAVING ITS OFFICE AT "DARUL - AUKAF", NO.6 CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE560052 VIDE ANNEXURE-D.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Petitioners are before this Court seeking the following prayers:

¶21

“(a) issue a Writ of Certiorari for quashing the impugned Notice, dated: 21-07-2015 issued and the Proceedings initiated by the Respondent – Karnataka State Board of Wakf having its Office at “DARUL – AUKAF”, No.6, Cunningham Road, Bangalore - 560 052 in Case No.KSBW/ENQ/33[02]CBP/2015 vide “ANNEXURE-“D” .

¶22

(b) to Award cost of the proceedings and

¶23

(c) to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court be pleased to grant in the facts and in the circumstances of the case.”

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:10325 WP No. 34914 of 2015

¶26

Heard Sri Zameer Pasha, learned counsel appearing for petitioners and Smt Swathi Ashok, learned counsel appearing for respondent-Wakf.

¶27

The petitioners claim to be the absolute owners and in peaceful possession and enjoyment of a property in old Sy.No.34 and new Sy.No.384 *at Alakapura village Thondebavi Hobli of Gowribidanur taluk. One Syed Mohammed was granted certain lands and from the legal representatives of the said Syed Mohammed, the petitioners purchase the subject property pursuant to execution of a registered sale deed on 29-10-2009 to an extent of 1 acre and 35 guntas. After the said purchase, it is the claim of the petitioners that all the records are in their name and they are in peaceful possession of the said property. When things stood thus, it transpires that the respondent/Wakf Board issues the impugned notice dated 21-07-2015 directing the petitioners to appear before the Inquiry Officer with all the documents regarding their ownership on the score that the property that the petitioners are in possession of, is a wakf property. The issuance of notice is what has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.

¶28

*Corrected vide Court order dated 30.08.2024

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:10325 WP No. 34914 of 2015

¶30

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the notice itself is in blatant violation of Sections 6 and 7 of the Wakf Act, 1995. He would submit that, if at all the Wakf

¶31

Board has any grievance with regard to the title of the petitioners or it had to determine that it was a property of the Wakf Board, it ought to have approached the Wakf Tribunal under Section 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995. He would further submit that this property is not declared to be Wakf property in the notification of the year 1965 and if it is not declared, it cannot be said to be a Wakf property as obtaining under Section 3 of the Wakf Act, 1995.

¶32

Learned counsel for respondent would submit that what is under challenge is a notice and no reply is submitted by the petitioner to the notice. She would submit that the petitioners be directed to furnish a reply to the notice and all further proceedings would be taken thereupon.

¶33

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:10325 WP No. 34914 of 2015

¶36

The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The issue lies in a narrow compass. The petitioners have appended the document of coming into possession of the property by way of a registered sale deed in the year 2009. Long after the petitioners coming into possession, a notice emerges from the Board of Wakf on 21-07-2015 directing the petitioner to reply to the notice as to how the petitioners have come into possession of the property, which according to the Board is a Wakf property. The statement of objections so filed by the Board is also to the same tenor that the property of the petitioners is a Wakf property. If the Board had to determine the property to be the Wakf property or otherwise, it had no jurisdiction to issue notice and determine itself that it is a Wakf property, unless it is the one notified in the notification of the year 1965.

¶37

Therefore, if the Wakf Board had any grievance with regard to the ownership and possession of the petitioners on the ground that it was a Wakf property, it ought to have approached the Wakf Tribunal under Section 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995. Therefore, the impugned notice is rendered

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:10325 WP No. 34914 of 2015

¶40

unsustainable and the petition deserves to succeed in part, reserving liberty to the Wakf Board to approach the Wakf Tribunal, on the very cause that is projected in the notice impugned in the subject petition.

¶41

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

(i) Writ Petition is allowed in part.

¶44

(ii) Impugned notice dated 21-07-2015 issued by the respondent/Wakf Board stands quashed.

¶45

(iii) The respondent/Wakf Board is reserved liberty to act in accordance with law, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

BKP

¶48

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40

Jashed Pasha v. Karnataka State Board of Wakf

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jashed Pasha v. Karnataka State Board of Wakf

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

Mr. Annappa Nayak Vs State Bank of India

S. Nagaraju Vs the Executive Officer

Mr Abdul Azeez Vs the Station House Officer

Shri K Narasimha Bahat Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Anupama B S Vs Union of India

Nirmala Bharatha Charitable Trust (R) Vs the State of Karnataka