Allowed

Smt Guruvamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Sept 2024WP/37519/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition filed by a subsequent transferee of Inam land. The court held that the land notified as Wakf cannot preclude the vendor's right to seek registration as an occupant under the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting the application under Section 9 of the Act, 1955 is quashed and remanded to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh examination and rehearing in accordance with law.

Smt Guruvamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:36692 WP No. 37519 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 37519 OF 2014 (LR)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SMT.GURUVAMMA

¶7

W/O LATE ANNEGOWDA SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS.

¶8

1(A) SMT.MANGALA

¶9

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

¶10

W/O M.S KRISHNA KERAGODU HOBLI ALKERE POST

¶11

1(B) SMT.JAYALAKSMI

¶12

AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

¶13

W/O CHELUVARAJU, KEMPANAPALYA KANCHUGARANAHALLI POST BIDADI HOBLI

¶14

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

RAMANAGARA - 562 109

¶16

1(C) SMT.BHAGYAMMA

¶17

AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

¶18

W/O KRISHNAPPA SULIBELE VILLAGE AND POST

¶19

HOSKOTE - 562 129

¶20

1(D) SMT.Y.A.SAROJA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

¶21

W/O KESAVA MURTHY C.K

¶22

NO.1163/2, KOTE MARIDI ROAD CHANNAPATANA TOWN RAMANAGARA - 562160

¶23

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:36692 WP No. 37519 of 2014

¶24

1(E) SMT.INDIRA

¶25

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS W/O LOKESH U NO.590/2, 5^TH CROSS UDAYAGIRI

¶26

MANDYA - 571 401

¶27

1(F) SMT.GEETA GOPI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS NO.128/6, KOTE BEEDI NEAR ANELINGESHWARA TEMPLE HUSKURU, SARJAPUR HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU - 560 099

¶28

…PETITIONERS

¶29

(BY SRI.VIVEK HOLLA, ADVOCATE FOR

¶30

SRI.SHARATH S GOGI, ADVOCATE)

¶31

AND:

¶32

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 01

¶33

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA - 562 159

¶34

JAMIYA MAZID GURUVABHOVIDODDI RAMANAGARA TALUK. RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 159 REPRESENTED BY MUTAVALLI

¶35

THE SECRETARY KARNATAKA WAKF COMMITTEE RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 159

¶36

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:36692 WP No. 37519 of 2014

¶37

THE SECRETARY DISTRICT WAKF COMMITTEE NO.9, CUNNINGHAM ROAD BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY KALEEMULLAH SHARIF

¶38

KHAJIVALI PEERAN (SINCE CEAD BY LRS)

¶39

SMT.PERRABI W/O KHAJIVALI PEERAN AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS

¶40

MOHAMMED ISMAIL AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

¶41

MOHAMMED ALIKHAN AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

¶42

MOHAMMED ANWAR AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

¶43

MOHAMED GOUSPEER AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶44

MOHAMED ASIF AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

¶45

MOHAMED ILIYAS AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶46

MOHAMED SHAFFI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶47

MOHAMMED YASIM AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC:36692 WP No. 37519 of 2014

¶50

MOHAMMED RAFIK AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶51

(RESPONDENT NO.6 IS WIFE AND RESPONDENT NOS.7 TO 15 ARE CHILDREN OF LATE KHAJIVALI PEERAN)

¶52

ALL ARE RESIDING AT DOOR NO.113, 11 "C" CROSS HOSAHALLI MAIN ROAD PADARAYANAPURA BENGALURU - 26

¶53

…RESPONDENTS

¶54

(BY SRI.K.P.YOGANNA, AGA FOR R.1 AND R.2; SMT.SWATHI ASHOK, ADVOCATE FOR R.5, R.3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, AND 15 ARE SERVED)

¶55

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DT.22.07.14 PASSED BY THE R2, IN REV.PET.NO.12/12-13, [OLD CASE NO.LRF/INM/8/1999-2000] VIDE ANN-R & ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION CONFIRMING THE OCCUPANCY RIGHTS OF THE APPLICANT THEREIN AND ETC.

¶56

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

¶57

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶58

ORAL ORDER

¶59

Learned AGA accepts notice for respondent Nos.1

¶60

and 2.

¶61

¶62

NC: 2024:KHC:36692 WP No. 37519 of 2014

¶63

2. The petitioner, who is a subsequent Transferee of Inam Land, is questioning the order passed by respondent No.2 in Revision Petition No.12/2012-13, wherein respondent No.2 – Deputy Commissioner after due enquiry has come to the conclusion that the petitioner’s vendor namely Khajivali Peeran has failed to substantiate that he is a tenant of the petition land. Consequently, the application filed by the petitioner’s vendor under Section 9 of the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 (for short 'Act, 1955') is rejected by recording a finding that there is already Notification issued by the Government of Karnataka on 08.02.1968 declaring that the property in question as Wakf property.

¶64

3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶65

and there is no representation on behalf of respondent Nos.3 to 5.

¶66

4. The legal heirs of the petitioner’s vendor, who are arrayed as respondent Nos.6 to 15, have also not chosen to contest the proceedings. The subject matter of the

¶67

¶68

NC: 2024:KHC:36692 WP No. 37519 of 2014

¶69

petition is an agricultural land bearing Sy. No.284 measuring 6 acres 24 guntas. The petitioner’s vendor filed an application seeking registration of occupancy rights under Section 9 of the 'Act, 1955'. The order under challenge is the 3^rd round of litigation.

¶70

5. Respondent No.2 –Deputy Commissioner has rejected the application filed by the petitioner’s vendor primarily on the premise that he has failed to substantiate that his vendor was tenant of the petition land and also on the ground that the petition land is already notified as a Wakf property under Section 5 of the Karnataka Wakf Act, 1955 and therefore, the application tendered by the petitioner’s vendor under Section 9 of 'Act, 1955' is not tenable. Before this Court delves upon the law laid down by the Division Bench in the case of KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF WAKFS AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS in WRIT APPEAL NO.5591/2011 AND WRIT APPEAL NO.379/2012 , it would be necessary to examine the stand taken by the

¶71

¶72

NC: 2024:KHC:36692 WP No. 37519 of 2014

¶73

Wakf Board in the earlier round of litigation. The statement of objection filed in the earlier round of litigation, which is evidenced at Annexure-G, would be relevant. The relevant portion is extracted, which reads as under;

¶74

"The applicant is merely trying to take advantage of the fact that he was at one time serving the mosque as a Khadim, working under the direction of the Muthavalli. He cannot claim any tenancy on that basis."

¶75

6. On reading the above said stand taken by the Board, this Court is of the view that the Board acknowledges the petitioner’s vendor was serving the mosque as a Khadim, working under the direction of the Muthavalli.

¶76

7. This factual matrix is further elicited in the crossexamination before the Special Deputy Commissioner in the earlier round of litigation. The relevant portion of the cross-examination of the Official examined on behalf of the

¶77

¶78

NC: 2024:KHC:36692 WP No. 37519 of 2014

¶79

Board, which is evidenced at Annexure-G, is necessary to be taken note of and the relevant portion is extracted, which reads as under;

¶80

" ¥ÁnÃ¸ÀªÁ®Ä CfðzÁgÀjAzÀ

¶81

1968g¯ À è ª É Pï À á ª À ÄAq À ¯ À Ai É ÄÄ º À Æg É r¹z À U À e É mï C¢ü¸ É ÆZ À £ À Ai É Ä°è ¸ À À £A 284P À Ì P É Äjv À Av À ª É Ä¹Ã¢Ai À Ä º À ¸ É g À Ä ª À iÁv À æ Ez À . Dz É g À Ez É g À °è Ai À iÁg À Ä À ªÄÃ°éZÁg É PÁgÁV P À ®¸ É ª À iÁq À ÄwÛzÁÝg À A§ §U É Î £ É ª À ÄÆz À Ä ª À iÁr®è. ¸ À z À j À C¢ü¸ÆZ À £ À Ai É Ä°è ª À Ä¹Ã¢ º À ¸ É j£ À e À Æv É U É ¸ É £ À A v À ÆÃj¹®èª É £ É Äßª À Åz À Ä À ¤dª®è. ¸ À z À j d«ÄÃ¤£ À ¸ À Ãª É Ai É Ä£ À Äß CfðzÁg À g À P À q À ¬ÄAz É ©r¹ £Áª À Å À ¥rAi À Ä®Ä ¥ À æAi À Äwß¸ À °®èª À £ É Äßª À Åz À Ä ¤d. ª À Ä¹Ã¢U À ¸ É A§A¢ü¹z À ¸ À Ãª É Ai É Ä£ À Äß À ¤ÃªÃ ª É iÁq À ÄwÛg À §º À Äz À Ä. £Áª À Å CfðzÁg À g À º À Æg É vÁV E£Áßg À £ À Äß À ªÄ¹Ã¢¸ À Ãª É UÁV £ É Ã«Ä¹®è. 1968£ É Ã ¸Á°£ É °è gÁdå¥ À v À æ ¥ À æP À lu À Ai É iÁz À À £Av À g À Cx À ªÁ Cz À P À Ì ª É Æz É ®Ä eÁ«ÄAi À iÁ ª À Ä¹Ã¢ U À Äg À Ä¨Á¬Äz À ÆrØAi É Ä À ¸ÃªÁ PÁAi É ÄðU À ¼ À £ À Äß ¤Ãª À Ã ª É iÁrP À ÆAq É Ä º À ÆÃV JAz É Ä ¤ª À ÄU À w½¹®è É J£ÀÄßªÀÅzÀÄ ¤d. "

¶82

8. Upon reviewing the cross-examination of the

¶83

official, who was examined on behalf of the Board, it is evident that the petitioner’s vendor had been providing services to the religious institution in question, which in this particular case is a mosque. This factual finding is crucial, as it establishes that the petitioner’s vendor was acting in the capacity of a service provider (Khadim) to the

¶84

¶85

NC: 2024:KHC:36692 WP No. 37519 of 2014

¶86

mosque. The remaining issue for this Court to address is whether the vendor’s application, asserting their status as

¶87

a tenant serving the institution, entitles them to be registered as an occupant. This determination must be made in light of the fact that the land in question has been notified as Wakf property. However, the key legal question is whether the mere fact that the property is classified as Wakf land can preclude the vendor’s right to seek registration as an occupant.

¶88

9. There is no dispute that the land in question is governed by the provisions of the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 ("Act, 1955"). Section 6A of the Act, 1955, clearly outlines that individuals serving as Archaks or Poojaris (priests or caretakers in religious institutions) are eligible to have their names registered as occupants, subject to certain conditions. From the evidence on record, it is established that the petitioner’s vendor was rendering services to the religious institution. Therefore, the pertinent issue before

¶89

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:36692 WP No. 37519 of 2014

¶90

this Court is whether the vendor’s right to seek registration as an occupant can be denied solely based on the fact that the land is notified as Wakf property. The decision of the Division Bench in W.A. No. 5591/2011 and W.A. No. 379/2012 conclusively addresses this issue. In those cases, this Court, following the precedent set by the Division Bench in a series of petitions, adhered to the principles established therein.

¶91

10. On considering the decisions rendered by this Court, which have relied on the aforementioned Division Bench judgment, it becomes apparent that the Division Bench judgment reaffirms the authority of the Act, 1955. Specifically, if the land in question falls under the purview of the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition

¶92

Act, 1955 , all Inam lands vest in the State Government free from any encumbrances, even those arising under the Wakf Act . Therefore, the classification of the land as Wakf property does not negate the rights of individuals,

¶93

11 -

¶94

NC: 2024:KHC:36692 WP No. 37519 of 2014

¶95

such as the petitioner’s vendor, to seek registration as an occupant under the provisions of the Act, 1955.

¶96

11. This Court in W.P.Nos.103351/2022 c/w 103349/2022 and connected matters when discussing the pertinent paragraphs of W.A. No.5591/2011 and W.A. No.379/2012 , reiterated that with the abolition of Inams, the lands automatically vest in the State Government free of all encumbrances. This includes any claims or classifications under the Wakf Act. In light of the binding precedent established by the Full Bench, as followed by the Co-ordinate Bench in the judgments referenced above, the decision of respondent No. 2 to reject the application filed by the petitioner’s vendor, on the grounds that the land in question is Wakf property and therefore not subject to tenancy rights, appears to be in clear violation of the legal principles established by both the Division Bench and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Consequently, the impugned order is untenable in law.

¶97

12 -

¶98

NC: 2024:KHC:36692 WP No. 37519 of 2014

¶99

12. Given the evidence on record that indicates the petitioner’s vendor was indeed providing services to the institution, it is evident that the vendor’s rights are governed by Section 6A of the Act, 1955. Therefore, respondent No. 1, the Deputy Commissioner, was under a duty to examine the application on its own merits, without allowing the fact that the land is Wakf property to unduly influence the decision. Even if the land is classified as Wakf property, such a classification does not negate the authority of the Special Deputy Commissioner to consider whether the petitioner’s vendor is entitled to be registered as an occupant under Section 6A of the Act, 1955. Since the impugned order clearly contravenes the legal principles established by the Division Bench and reaffirmed by this court, it cannot stand. Accordingly, the matter requires a fresh examination by respondent No. 2, the Special Deputy Commissioner. This new inquiry must be conducted strictly in accordance with the legal principles laid down by the Division Bench and followed by the Coordinate Bench in the judgments previously cited.

¶100

13 -

¶101

NC: 2024:KHC:36692 WP No. 37519 of 2014

¶102

13. For the reasons stated supra, this Court proceeds to pass the following;

¶103

ORDER

¶104

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶105

(ii) The order under challenge dated 22.07.2014 passed by respondent No.2 in Revision Petition No.12/201213 (Old Case No.LRF/INM/8/19992000) as per Annexure-R is hereby quashed and set-aside and the matter stands remitted back to respondent No.2 – Deputy Commissioner.

¶106

(iii) Respondent No.2 – Deputy Commissioner shall re-hear the matter by taking note of the law laid down by the Division Bench and Co-ordinate Bench this Court cited supra.

¶107

(iv) After due enquiry, the appropriate orders shall be passed in accordance with law.

¶108

SD/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶109

NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

Smt Guruvamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Guruvamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Savubai Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Shahnawaz Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Eswar Singh Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Nanjaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Albert Vs the Thasildar

Vishwanath Vs the State of Karnataka