Disposed¶51

Mr. Sharukh Khan v. the Karnataka State Board of Auqaf

Karnataka HC6 Jan 2026WP/34723/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru; B M Shyam Prasad J; decided 06-01-2026; WP No. 34723 of 2024 (GM-WAKF); writ under Articles 226 and 227; Karnataka Wakf Tribunal, Bengaluru; O.S. No.36/2023; I.A. No.II; interim order dated 18.09.2024; Tribunal judgment dated 29.09.2025 dismissing suit; Jumma Masjid, Nagenahalli Kuskur, Shikaripur; five times namaz including Jumma namaz; petition disposed of as infructuous; respondents bound by Tribunal's finding.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of as having become infructuous in view of the Tribunal's judgment dated 29.09.2025 dismissing the petitioners' suit, with the observation that the respondents will be bound by the Tribunal's finding in that judgment and that the petitioners cannot be restrained from offering prayers. ¶50

Mr. Sharukh Khan Vs the Karnataka State Board of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:710 WP No. 34723 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 34723 OF 2024 (GM-WAKF)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MR. SHARUKH KHAN AGED ABOUT31 YEARS, S/O AYUB SAB R/O NAGENAHALLI KUSKUR, SHIMOGGA, SHIKARIPUR - 577447.

¶11

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N

¶12

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

MR MOHAMMED SALEEM AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, S/O CHAMAN SAB R/O NAGENAHALLI KUSKUR, SHIMOGGA SHIKARIPUR - 577447.

¶14

(BY SRI.UDAY K S., ADVOCATE FOR

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

SRI. C M NAGABUSHANA.,ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

THE KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF AUQAF , DARUL AWAKF

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:710 WP No. 34723 of 2024

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

NO 06 CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU - 560062 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

¶23

THE DISTRICT WAQF OFFICER DISTRICT WAQF OFFICE MUSLIM HOTEL BUILDING, SIR M V ROAD, SHIMOGA - 577201.

¶24

MANAGING COMMITTEE JUMMA MASJID NAGEHALLI VILLAE HIREJAMBOOR GRAMA, SHIKARIPUR TALUK SHIMOGGA DISTRICT - 577477.

¶25

MR. CHAMAN SAB AGED 46 YEARS S/O LORD SAB R/O NAGENAHALLI KUSKUR, SHIMOGGA, SHIKARIPUR - 577447.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. MOHAMMAD NIYAZ S., ADVOCATE FOR R1;

¶28

MS. CHINTANA., ADVOCATE FOR

¶29

SRI. H. MALLANAGOUD., ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4)

¶30

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO, DIRECTION OF SIMILAR NATURE QUASHING OR SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18-09-2024

¶31

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:710 WP No. 34723 of 2024

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

PASSED IN O.S NO.36/2023 IN I.A. NO.II BY THE KARNATAKA WAKF TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE AT ANNEXURE-Q; ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR DIRECTION OR ORDER OF SIMILAR NATURE RESTRAINING THE RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5 FROM PREVENTING THE PETITIONERS IN PERFORMING 5 TIMES NAMAZ INCLUDING JUMMA NAMAZ IN THE JUMMA MASJID AS PRAYED FOR IN I.A. NO.II IN O.S. NO.36/2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE KARNATAKA WAKF TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE AT ANNEXURE-L.

¶35

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

¶36

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶37

ORAL ORDER

¶38

The petitioners have called in question the interim order dated 18.09.2024 in OS No.36/2023 by the Karnataka Wakf Tribunal, Bengaluru [ the Tribunal ]. The Tribunal has directed the third and fourth respondents not to obstruct the petitioners from offering prayers in the masjid. A copy of the Tribunal's judgment dated 29.09.2025 is placed on record by the learned counsels

¶39

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:710 WP No. 34723 of 2024

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

for the respondents stating that, with the Tribunal dismissing the petitioners' suit the petition is rendered infructuous.

¶43

Sri Uday, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that this Court may observe that:

¶44

[a] with the disposal of this petition in the light of the Tribunal's judgment would not in any manner impede the liberty reserved by the Tribunal to the petitioners to approach the Court and

¶45

[b] that the petitioners are at liberty to offer prayers at the masjid.

¶46

However, Sri Mohammad Niyaz S and Ms. Chintana, the learned counsels for the third and fourth respondents, are categorical that the petitioners have not been prevented from offering prayers. In fact, Sri Mohammad Niyaz S, the learned counsel for the first respondent, submits that the petitioners will not be prevented from offering namaz with Ms. Chintana, the learned counsel who appears for Sri H. Mallanagoud, the learned counsel on record for the

¶47

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:710 WP No. 34723 of 2024

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

third and fourth respondents, submitting that it is the petitioners who are obstructing others from offering prayers. It would suffice for this Court to observe, while disposing of the petition as having become infructuous, that the respondents will be bound by the Tribunal's finding in the judgment dated 29.09.2025 and that they cannot be restrained from offering prayers.

¶51

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶52

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶53

Mr. Sharukh Khan v. the Karnataka State Board of Auqaf

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Sharukh Khan v. the Karnataka State Board of Auqaf

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Malamma Vs the Canara Bank

Sri. Natarajshastry Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri N S Nagaraju Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri R Manjunath Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Radhakrishna Urs H N Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Chuna Rafi Ahmed Vs the State of Karnataka