Mr Shabbeer Khan Vs Mohammedia Masjid

MR SHABBEER KHAN S/O LATE ASADULLA KHAN, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, PROP: THE CLASSIC ENGINEERING WORKS SHOP NO.1, DURGAH OF HAZRATH DIWAN SHAWALLI COMPLEX BUDDENSHAH MAKKAN, KONDARAJANAHALLI VILLAGE, MADERAHALLI POST, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 102.

¶15

…PETITIONER

¶16

(BY SRI. NATARAJA B S., ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

MOHAMMEDIA MASJID

¶19

REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, KONDARAJANAHALLI VILLAGE, MADERAHALLI POST, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 102.

¶20

2 -

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC:263 WP No. 19108 of 2022 C/W WP No. 19045 of 2022 WP No. 19106 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

THE COMPETENT OFFICER AND ADDL.CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF WAKF, BENGALURU-560 051.

¶24

THE PRESIDENT OF DURGAH OF HAZRATH DIWAN SHAWALLI BUDDENSHAH MAKKAN, KONDARAJANAHALLI VILLAGE, MADERAHALLI POST, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT-563 102.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY MRS. AZRA J. DUNDGE, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SWATHI ASHOK., ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. DHIRAJ A.K., ADVOCATE FOR R3 R-1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12.08.2022 IN CASE NO.PP/13/KLR/2013 PASSED BY THE R2 - THE COMPETENT OFFICER AND THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF WAKF, BENGALURU, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D TO THE WRIT PETITION.

¶28

IN WP NO. 19045/2022

¶29

BETWEEN:

¶30

MR. SYED HUSSAIN S/O LATE NAHNHAI JAN, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, PROP: GENERAL STORES, SHOP NO.2, DURGAH OF HAZRATH DIWAN SHAWALLI COMPLEX, BUDDENSHAH MAKKAN, KONDARAJANAHALLI VILLAGE, MADERAHALLI POST, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 102.

¶31

...PETITIONER

¶32

3 -

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:263 WP No. 19108 of 2022 C/W WP No. 19045 of 2022 WP No. 19106 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

(BY SRI. NATARAJA B S., ADVOCATE)

¶36

AND:

¶37

MOHAMMEDIA MASJID REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, KONDARAJANAHALLI VILLAGE, MADERAHALLI POST, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 102.

¶38

THE COMPETENT OFFICER AND ADDL.CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF WAKF, BENGALURU-560 051.

¶39

THE PRESIDENT OF DURGAH OF HAZRATH DIWAN SHAWALLI BUDDENSHAH MAKKAN, KONDARAJANAHALLI VILLAGE, MADERAHALLI POST, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 102.

¶40

...RESPONDENTS

¶41

(BY MRS. AZRA J. DUNDGE, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SWATHI ASHOK., ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. DHIRAJ A.K., ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶42

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12.08.2022 IN CASE NO.PP/14/KLR/2013 PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-D TO THE WRIT PETITION.

¶43

IN WP NO. 19106/2022

¶44

BETWEEN:

¶45

MR INAYATH PASHA S/O AKBAR SAB,

¶46

4 -

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:263 WP No. 19108 of 2022 C/W WP No. 19045 of 2022 WP No. 19106 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, PROP:THE NATIONAL TYRE WORKS, SHOP NO.5, DURGAH OF HAZARATH DIWAN SHAWALLI COMPLEX, BUDDENSHAH MAKKAN, KONDARAJANAHALLI VILLAGE, MADERAHALLI POST, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 102.

¶50

...PETITIONER

¶51

(BY SRI. NATARAJA B S., ADVOCATE)

¶52

AND:

¶53

MOHAMMEDIA MASJID REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, KONDARAJANAHALLI VILLAGE, MADERAHALLI POST, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 102.

¶54

THE COMPETENT OFFICER AND ADDL.CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF WAKF, BENGALURU-560 051.

¶55

THE PRESIDENT OF DURGAH OF HAZRATH DIWAN SHAWALLI BUDDENSHAH MAKKAN, KONDARAJANAHALLI VILLAGE, MADERAHALLI POST, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 102.

¶56

...RESPONDENTS (BY MRS. AZRA J. DUNDGE., ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SWATHI ASHOK., ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. DHIRAJ A.K., ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶57

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 12.08.2022 IN CASE NO.PP/17/KLR/2013 PASSED BY THE R2-THE COMPETENT

¶58

5 -

¶59

NC: 2026:KHC:263 WP No. 19108 of 2022 C/W WP No. 19045 of 2022 WP No. 19106 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

OFFICER AND THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF WAKF, BENGALURU, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D TO THE WRIT PETITION.

¶62

IN WP NO. 19109/2022

¶63

BETWEEN:

¶64

MR. AKBAR PASHA S/O BUDEN SAB, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, PROP: BBH AUTO DIESEL WORKS, SHOP NO.6, DURGAH OF HAZRATH DIWAN SHAWALLI COMPLEX, BUDDENSHAH MAKKAN, KONDARAJANAHALLI VILLAGE, MADERAHALLI POST, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 102.

¶65

...PETITIONER

¶66

(BY SRI. NATARAJA B S., ADVOCATE)

¶67

AND:

¶68

MOHAMMEDIA MASJID REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, KONDARAJANAHALLI VILLAGE, MADERAHALLI POST, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 102.

¶69

THE COMPETENT OFFICER AND ADDL.CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF WAKF, BENGALURU-560 051.

¶70

THE PRESIDENT OF DURGAH OF HAZRATH DIWAN SHAWALLI BUDDENSHAH MAKKAN, KONDARAJANAHALLI VILLAGE, MADERAHALLI POST,

¶71

6 -

¶72

NC: 2026:KHC:263 WP No. 19108 of 2022 C/W WP No. 19045 of 2022 WP No. 19106 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 102.

¶75

...RESPONDENTS

¶76

(BY MRS. AZRA J. DUNDGE., ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SWATHI ASHOK., ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. DHIRAJ A.K., ADVOCATE FOR R3 R-1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶77

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12.08.2022 IN CASE NO.PP/18/KLR/2013 PASSED BY THE R2-THE COMPETENT OFFICER AND THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF WAKF, BENGALURU PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D TO THE WRIT PETITION.

¶78

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶79

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶80

ORAL ORDER

¶81

Petitioners are assailing the order dated 12.08.2022 passed by respondent No.2/The Competent Officer and Additional Chief Executive Officer, Karnataka State Board of Wakf produced at Annexure-D in case No.PP/13/KLR/2013.

¶82

Originally, the respondent No.2 had passed order under sub-Section (1) of Section 5 of the Karnataka Public Premises(Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974

¶83

7 -

¶84

NC: 2026:KHC:263 WP No. 19108 of 2022 C/W WP No. 19045 of 2022 WP No. 19106 of 2022 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶85

directing the petitioners herein to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the schedule premises within 45 days. Being aggrieved, petitioners herein have preferred miscellaneous appeals before the I Additional District Judge, Kolar. By order dated 02.07.2020 the I Additional District and Sessions Judge Kolar, partly allowed the said appeals and remanded the matters to the respondent No.2 with a direction to competent officer to reconsider the case keeping in mind the directions issued at paragraph 21 of the said order. By the impugned order the respondent No.2 has reiterated the earlier order calling upon the petitioners to vacate and hand over the premises within 45 days resulting in filing of the present petitions.

¶86

Learned counsel for the petitioners taking this Court through the records, firstly submit that the order impugned in these petitions has been passed placing the petitioners exparte and that the address given in the cause title of the petition is not the one belonging to the petitioners. As such, there is no service of notice. Secondly, he submits that the I Additional District and Sessions Judge while reminding the matter had at

¶87

NC: 2026:KHC:263 WP No. 19108 of 2022 C/W WP No. 19045 of 2022 WP No. 19106 of 2022 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶88

8 -

¶89

paragraph 21 specifically directed the respondent No.2/Additional Chief Executive Officer to consider the jurisdictional aspect which has not been considered by the respondent No.2. Therefore, he submits that there is no compliance to the order of remand. Thus, on these two counts seeks for allowing the petitions.

¶90

Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that the property in question belonged to respondent No.3-Waqf Institution and since there is an inter se dispute between respondent No.1 and respondent No.3- Waqf Institution, the respondent No.2/Competent officer has no jurisdiction to decide the matter.

¶91

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 on the other hand submits that the notice was issued to the petitioners herein at the address which was provided. It is only on service of the notice and since there was no representation, they were placed ex parte. That since there was no contest there was no requirement of adverting to the direction issued by the I Additional District Judge at paragraph 21 of the remand order. As such, no irregularity, illegality can be found.

¶92

9 -

¶93

NC: 2026:KHC:263 WP No. 19108 of 2022 C/W WP No. 19045 of 2022 WP No. 19106 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER

¶94

HC-KAR

¶95

Heard and perused the records.

¶96

In the order dated 02.07.2020 passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No.2 of 2018 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kolar at paragraph 21, following directions have been issued:

¶97

"21. The 2nd respondent shall have to decide as to whether the 2^nd respondent has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the petition filed by the 1st respondent, in view of the provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995, referred to above, including the amended provisions which came into force in 2013 and the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court & our High Court, supra. The 2nd respondent shall consider if the petition filed by the 1st respondent is required to be adjudicated by the Tribunal constituted under Section 83 of the Waqf Act, 1995 or not. Secondly, the 2^nd respondent shall examine whether the schedule premises is the property of the 1st respondent or 3^rd respondent and if both are separate & distinct Waqf Institutions. This is required to be examined as the material on record would prima facie reveal that the 1st respondent only holds the property measuring 60 feet X 47 feet out of 6 guntas of land in Sy.No.95 and the remaining extent is held by the 3^rd respondent. The incidental issue to be examined would be whether the 1st respondent can file a petition when the appellant is a tenant in respect of the schedule premises under the 3^rd respondent. The 2^nd respondent is also obliged to hold a proper enquiry by providing sufficient opportunity to both sides to lead evidence on their behalf. It is only when the 2^nd Respondent decides all these aspects that he would be in a position to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. As such, point No.1 needs to be answered as 'partly in the affirmative' and it is answered accordingly".

¶98

Clearly there appears to be inter se claim and counter claim between respondent No.1 and respondent

¶99

No.3/institution. In the impugned order, respondent No.3 has

¶100

NC: 2026:KHC:263 WP No. 19108 of 2022 C/W WP No. 19045 of 2022 WP No. 19106 of 2022 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶101

10 -

¶102

not been arrayed as a party/respondent. Petitioners herein

¶103

have been placed exparte. Thus, there is no compliance to the direction issued by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kolar as found at paragraph 21 extracted hereinabove.

¶104

In that view of the matter,

¶105

Petitions are allowed.

¶106

Impugned order dated 12.08.2022 in all the petitions passed by the respondent No.2 are set aside.

¶107

Matters are remitted to respondent No.2-The Competent Officer and Additional Chief Executive Officer of Karnataka State Board of Wakf to reconsider afresh after affording opportunity to the petitioners as well as respondent No.3.

¶108

Since petitioners and the respondents are being represented by their respective learned counsel, they shall appear before the respondent No.2 on 16.02.2026 without waiting for any further notice.

¶109

All contentions are kept out.

¶110

SD/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶111

SBN

¶112

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33

Mr Shabbeer Khan v. Mohammedia Masjid

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Shabbeer Khan v. Mohammedia Masjid

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

Kushappa Mahadevappa Nalavadi Vs Pandappa Mahadevappa Nalavadi Deceased by His Legal Heirs Smt Shekavva W/O Pandappa Nalavadi

Smt. Geetha Vs Sri. Yellappa

Smt Jayamma Vs Sri Nyatha Reddy

Kumbara Sangha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Suprith Gowda H.R Vs the Managing Director

Sri.M.K.Putta Boregowda Vs State of Karnataka