Masjid E Dargahi Vs the Karnataka State Board of Auqaf

SHAFIULLA BAIG S/O WAZIR BAIG AGE: ABOUT 58 YEARS PRESIDENT, MASJID-E-DARGAHI SITUATED AT SAWDAY ROAD, MANDI MOHALLA, MYSURU-570 021 RESIDING AT NO.1996/1, TURABALLI STREET, SAWDAY ROAD, MANDI MOHALLA, MYSURU-570 021.

¶10

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

S.A. RASHEED, S/O LATE SYED DAWOOD, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS VICE PRESIDENT, MASJID-E-DARGAHI SITUATED AT SAWDAY ROAD, MANDI MOHALLA, MYSURU-570 021 RESIDING AT NO.2745, SAWDAY ROAD, MANDI MOHALLA, MYSURU-570 021.

¶12

ABDUL SALAM S/O LATE FAIROZ AGE: ABOUT 40 YEARS SECRETARY

¶13

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:36672 WP No. 6584 of 2020

¶14

HC-KAR

¶15

MASJID-E-DARGAHI SITUATED AT SAWDAY ROAD, LAKSHAR MOHALLA, MYSURU-570 021 RESIDING AT NO.2211, TURABALLI STREET, SAWDAY ROAD, MANDI MOHALLA, MYSURU-570 021.

¶16

M.C. MUNAVAR PASHA, S/O LATE CHOTE SAB, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, TREASURER, MASJID-E-DARGAHI SITUATED AT SAWDAY ROAD, MANDI MOHALLA, MYSURU-570021 RESIDING AT NO.2820, M-3/1, 4^TH CROSS, SAWDAY ROAD, MANDI MOHALLA, MYSURU-570 021.

¶17

ABDUL SATTAR, S/O LATE ABDUL JABBAR, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, COMMITTEE MEMBER MASJID-E-DARGAHI SITUATED AT SAWDAY ROAD, MANDI MOHALLA, MYSURU-570 021 RESIDING AT NO.2686/2, SULTHAN PARK ROAD, MANDI MOHALLA, MYSURU-570 021.

¶18

BADSHA @ BABU, S/O LATE MOHAMMED HAYATH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS COMMITTEE MEMBER MASJID-E-DARGAHI SITUATED AT SAWDAY ROAD, MANDI MOHALLA, MYSURU-570 021 RESIDING AT NO.2819, 4^TH CROSS, TURABALLI STREET,

¶19

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:36672 WP No. 6584 of 2020

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

SAWDAY ROAD, MANDI MOHALLA, MYSURU-570 021.

¶22

IFTEKHAR BASHIR AHMED, S/O LATE BASHEER AHMED, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS COMMITTEE MEMBER MASJID-E-DARGAHI SITUATED AT SAWDAY ROAD, MANDI MOHALLA, MYSURU-570 021 RESIDING AT NO.2762/5, PARK ROAD, MANDI MOHALLA, MYSURU-570 021.

¶23

MOHAMMED IRFAN QURESHI, S/O LATE MOHAMMED ISMAIL, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS COMMITTEE MEMBER MASJID-E-DARGAHI SITUATED AT SAWDAY ROAD, MANDI MOHALLA, MYSURU-570 021 RESIDING AT NO.2225, SAWDAY ROAD, MANDI MOHALLA, MYSURU-570 021.

¶24

RIYAZ AHMED, S/O LATE MOHAMMED AHMED, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS COMMITTEE MEMBER MASJID-E-DARGAHI SITUATED AT SAWDAY ROAD, MANDI MOHALLA, MYSURU-570 021 RESIDING AT NO.2719, M.K.D.K. ROAD, MANDI MOHALLA, MYSURU-570 021.

¶25

SHRAFUDDIN, S/O LATE GULAM MOINUDIN, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, COMMITTEE MEMBER MASJID-E-DARGAHI SITUATED AT SAWDAY ROAD, MANDI MOHALLA, MYSURU-570 021

¶26

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:36672 WP No. 6584 of 2020

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

RESIDING AT NO.2901, MOMTABUT STREET, MANDI MOHALLA, MYSURU-570 021.

¶29

AYUB SHARIFF, S/O REHMAN SHARIFF, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, COMMITTEE MEMBER MASJID-E-DARGAHI SITUATED AT SAWDAY ROAD, MANDI MOHALLA, MYSURU-570 021 RESIDING AT NO.2618, M.K.D.K. ROAD, MANDI MOHALLA, MYSURU-570 021.

¶30

…PETITIONERS

¶31

(BY SRI. D. AKRAM UPPIN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAHAMATHULLA KOTHWAL, ADVOCATE)

¶32

AND:

¶33

THE KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF AUQAF HAVING ITS OFFICE AT "DARUL AUQAF", NO.06, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU-560 052 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶34

THE KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF AUQAF HAVING ITS OFFICE AT "DARUL AUQAF" NO.06, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU-560 052 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

¶35

THE DISTRICT AUQAF OFFICER THE DISTRICT WAKF ADVISORY COMMITTEE, MYSURU DISTRICT, NEW SAYYAJI RAO ROAD, MANDI MOHALLA, MYSURU-560 021.

¶36

SRI MOHAMED MUSHTAQ WAKF OFFICER I/C MANDYA DISTRICT

¶37

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:36672 WP No. 6584 of 2020

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

AND APPOINTED AS CARE TAKER OF MASJID-E-DARGAHI SITUATED AT SAWDAY ROAD, MYSURU-560 021.

¶40

…RESPONDENTS

¶41

(BY SRI. SYED SUHAIL ALI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2; SRI. L.M. CHIDANANDAYYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. L.M.AMITH, ADVOCATE FOR *THE PROPOSED R-5 AND R-6; R-1, R-3 AND R-4 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶42

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PUBLIC NOTICE DATED 13.01.2020 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3-DISTRICT WAKF ADVISORY COMMITTEE, MYSURU DISTRICT, MYSURU IN NO.DWAC/01/MYS/14-15 VIDE ANNEXURE-S AND ETC.

¶43

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

¶44

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶45

ORAL ORDER

¶46

The petitioners have challenged a public notice dated

¶47

13.01.2020 issued by respondent No.3 bearing No.DWAC/01/MYS/14-15. They have also sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 06.02.2020 passed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in order No. KSBA/CMC/49/MYS/2015-16 in appointing the respondent No.4 as care taker for the petitioner-Masjid-E-Dargahi. They have also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents - Karnataka State Board of Auqaf to approve the

¶48

*INSERTED VIDE CHAMBER ORDER DATED 12.11.2025

¶49

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:36672 WP No. 6584 of 2020

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

Committee of Management constituted for the Masjid-EDargahi.

¶52

When this petition was listed before this Court on 30.01.2025, the petition was disposed of, directing the board to conduct elections to the Masjid-E-Dargahi Institution within an outer limit of three months. This Court did not consider the contentions urged by the petitioners. Later, it was found that an application filed by the impleading applicant (I.A.No.1/2025) was not considered and therefore, in terms of an order dated 23.07.2025, the order dated 30.01.2025 was recalled and the writ petition was restored to file.

¶53

The petitioners contend that Masjid-E-Dargahi is a religious Waqf. They contend that the Waqf Board, instead of conducting the elections to constitute the Committee of Management, had passed an order dated 21.06.2014 assuming direct management and appointed an administrator, without conducting any enquiry. The said order was challenged before this Court in WP No.53132-138/2014. This Court in terms of an order dated 30.09.2015 had directed that elections shall be held as expeditiously as possible, which at any rate shall not

¶54

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:36672 WP No. 6584 of 2020

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

exceed three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy by the respondent No.2. The petitioners contend that the board did not hold elections, which compelled them to file contempt petition No.945/2016. The board then started the process of election, resulting in the contempt proceedings being dropped. They contend that instead of conducting the elections as required of it, the board passed an order appointing the respondent No.4 as a caretaker. The petitioners are therefore before this Court challenging the order passed by the board appointing the respondent No.4 as a care taker.

¶57

The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the board was bound to conduct elections but did not do so as per the order passed by this Court in WP No.53132138/2014 but has proceeded to appoint a caretaker. He contends that the caretaker was required to conduct elections and he also has not taken any steps from the date of the impugned order till today to conduct the elections. He therefore contends that the petitioners would be satisfied if the board conducts the elections to constitute the managing committee of the Masjid.

¶58

8 -

¶59

NC: 2025:KHC:36672 WP No. 6584 of 2020

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

(i) Per contra, the learned counsel for the impleading applicants contend that the institution in question was managed by a hereditary Muthavalli. In this regard, he referred to the report of the survey committee and contended that the rule of succession to the office of Muthavalli was mentioned as hereditary. He also referred to the notification issued by the State Government under Section 5 of the Waqf Act, 1954 and contends that Haji Abdul Sattar and Nisar Ahmed Khan Sahab were the hereditary Muthavallies. He therefore contends that the Waqf was managed by a hereditary Muthavalli. Therefore, impleading applicants being the nominees of the hereditary Muthavalli are entitled to come on record and contest the relief sought for in this writ petition.

¶62

(ii) The petitioners have objected to this application primarily contending that the applicant No.1 in I.A No.1/2025 was appointed as an administrator in terms of an order dated 28.05.2009 and 27.12.2010 . He contends that the order appointing the administrator was challenged by a person interested in the Waqf before the Secretary to the State Government in Revision Application No.MWD 63 WLM 2011, which was dismissed in terms of an order dated 17.06.2011. He

¶63

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:36672 WP No. 6584 of 2020

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

contends that the administrator, namely the applicant No.1 in I.A No.1/2025, had furnished draft bye-laws and the Board of Waqf had notified it in terms of a public notice dated 18.01.2011. Following this, the State Board had constituted a managing committee consisting of 13 members and the petitioner herein was the vice-president of the committee.

¶66

(iii) He contends that in respect of the very same institution, this Court was considering the question regarding the validity of the appointment of the applicant No.1 in I.A No.1/2025 as an administrator and after considering the contentions urged had directed the State Board of Waqf to conduct elections. He therefore contends that the applicant No.1 was aware that he was not a hereditary Muthavalli and therefore had consented to be appointed as an administrator. Therefore, it is contended that the applicant has no locus standi . At this point in time, to implead in this writ petition and challenge the holding of elections.

¶67

The learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the impleading applicants reiterated their respective contentions as stated above.

¶68

10 -

¶69

NC: 2025:KHC:36672 WP No. 6584 of 2020

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

Since the petitioners have contended before this Court that they would be satisfied if directions issued to the State Board of Waqf to conduct elections to elect the managing committee to manage the institution, in view of the fact that the applicant No.1 was appointed as an administrator on earlier occasions, the impleading applicants cannot now come in the way of holding elections to the managing committee to elect the managing committee to manage the Waqf. However, if the impleading applicants raise any dispute before the Waqf Tribunal for restoration of their status as hereditary Muthavalli which they have done in Application No.28/2022, the mere election of a managing committee would not impair the applicants in I.A. No.1/2025, to compel the Tribunal to restore their rights as hereditary Muthavallis.

¶72

In that view of the matter, this petition deserves to

¶73

be disposed off on the following terms:

¶74

(i) The Karnataka State Board of Auqaf/respondent No.1 is directed to conduct elections to elect a managing committee to manage the Masjid namely Masjidi-E-Dargahi within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶75

11 -

¶76

NC: 2025:KHC:36672 WP No. 6584 of 2020

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

It is made clear that if the respondent No.1 fails to conduct elections, this Court would be compelled to appoint a suitable person to conduct the elections and the chairman of the Board shall be personally responsible for all the costs and consequences.

¶79

(ii) The rights if any of the applicants in I.A.No.1/2025 shall be urged before the Tribunal in application No.28/2022. The conduct of elections to elect the managing committee by the respondent No.1 shall not come in the way of Tribunal deciding the claim of the applicants on merits in accordance with law.

¶80

(iii) I.A.No.1/2025 stands disposed off on the above terms.

¶81

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶82

BKN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

Masjid E Dargahi v. the Karnataka State Board of Auqaf

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Masjid E Dargahi v. the Karnataka State Board of Auqaf

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Thimmegowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Srinatha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Sampath Vs Assistant Registrar of Co. Operative Society

Dr G Manjunath Vs the Chairman and Deputy Commissioner

The Nurserymen Co. Operative Society Ltd., Vs Karnataka Information Commission

Bhasyamaswamy @ N.Venkatachar Vs Narayana Bhattar