Writ Petition No. 22014 of 2016 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4923 WP No. 22014 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 22014 OF 2016 (KLR-LG) BETWEEN: THE MANAGING COMMITTEE, JAMIA MASJID DEVANAHALLI TOWN, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. (BY SRI BASAVARAJ V SABARAD, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI H.L PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT(LAND GRANTS-1), MULTI-STORIED BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001. Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE-560 001. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, DEVANAHALLI-562 110. 4. DISTRICT OFFICER, BACKWARD CLASS WELFARE DEPARTMENT, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, PODIUM BLOCK, V.V. TOWER, BANGALORE-560 001. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4923 WP No. 22014 of 2016 5. THE CHIEF OFFICER, TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, DEVANAHALLI-562 110. 6. THE KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF WAKFS, NO.6, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE-560 002. REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI MANJUNATH K, HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-4; SRI. NAGARAJ S. JAIN, ADVOCATE FOR R5 SRI MOHAMMED NIYAZ S, ADVOCATE FOR R-6) …RESPONDENTS THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (I) CALL FOR THE RECORDS; (II) QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO. RD 213 LGB 2013 DATED 07.01.2014 (ANNEXURE-E) PASSED BY R-1, CONSEQUENT THEREUPON QUASH OM BEARING NO. LND (De) SR 24/12-13 DATED 27.01.2014 (ANNEXURE-F) ISSUED BY R-2 AND LAND TRANSFER LETTER / CERTIFICATE BEARING NO. L.N.D.CK/147 2013-14 DATED 30.05.2014 (ANNEXURE-G) ISSUED BY THE R-4. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER In the captioned petition, the Managing Committee of WAKF Institution is assailing the order bearing No. RD 213 LGB 2013 dated 07.01.2014 issued by the 1st respondent - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4923 WP No. 22014 of 2016 and official memorandum bearing No. LND(De) SR 24/12- 13 dated 27.01.2014 issued by the 2nd respondent. 2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.5 as well as the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6. 3. The subject matter of this petition is an agricultural land bearing Sy. No.307 measuring 33 guntas situated at Devanahalli, Bangalore Rural District, which has corresponding Town Municipal Council No. 909/894, it is assigned a fresh No.1138/1039. Petitioner asserts that the above said land is notified as Wakf property which is evidenced at Annexure-A. Therefore, the petitioner contends that respondent No.1 - State has no authority to divert the Wakf property to be utilized by the 4th respondent. Assailing the aforementioned 2 notifications, the captioned petition is filed. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4923 WP No. 22014 of 2016 4. The petitioner by way of an additional evidence through a memo dated 12.08.2021 has placed on record the subsequent development in the case on hand referring to the proceedings conducted by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Bangalore Rural District, and points out that the petition land which was initially allotted to the 4th respondent is now practically withdrawn and an alternative land is suggested and handed over to the 4th respondent and the 4th respondent has accomplished by putting up construction in a fresh land, more particularly in Sy. No.41 totally measuring 20 guntas. 5. Having heard the learned counsel, this Court has meticulously reviewed the issue on hand. This Court has also examined the documents annexed along with the Memo dated 12.08.2021. 6. Upon a careful perusal of the Gazette Notification issued by the then Mysore State Board of Wakfs, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore, it is unequivocally evident that the land in question has been duly notified as - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4923 WP No. 22014 of 2016 Wakf property. This notification was issued in the exercise of powers conferred under sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Wakf Act, 1953, thereby recognizing the property as belonging to the Wakf. It is a well-settled legal principle that once a property is declared and notified as Wakf property, its character as Wakf land attains a permanent and immutable status. Such property remains dedicated to religious or charitable purposes as prescribed under Wakf law, and its ownership or nature cannot be altered by the State or any other authority. Consequently, any attempt by the State or its instrumentalities to divert, alienate, or repurpose the Wakf property for any use other than its intended religious or charitable purpose would be legally untenable and void ab initio. 7. In light of the foregoing legal position, the order issued by the first respondent – State, as reflected in Annexure-E, and the Official Memorandum subsequently issued by the second respondent, as seen in Annexure-F, suffer from a fundamental lack of jurisdiction. These - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4923 WP No. 22014 of 2016 actions, taken without any legal authority or competence, directly contravene the established principles governing Wakf properties. The State and its agencies do not possess the legal sanction to pass orders affecting the status or rights associated with Wakf property in a manner contrary to the Wakf Act and the prevailing legal framework. Hence, both Annexure-E and Annexure-F, being ultra vires and devoid of lawful authority, are liable to be set aside. 8. Furthermore, taking into account the subsequent developments in the matter, it is evident that the issue concerning the fourth respondent has also been rendered infructuous. This is primarily due to the fact that an alternative land has been identified and suggested for the fourth respondent, as documented in the proceedings of the Chief Executive Officer. A copy of these proceedings has been duly placed on record along with the memo, further substantiating the resolution of the fourth respondent’s claim. Given this factual position, the controversy surrounding the fourth respondent does not - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:4923 WP No. 22014 of 2016 survive for further consideration. In light of these circumstances, and in view of the fact that the order of the first respondent – State, followed by the Official Memorandum issued by the second respondent, have been found to be without authority and jurisdiction, this Court, in the exercise of its constitutional powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, deems it appropriate to quash and set aside both these orders. 9. For the foregoing reasons, this Court passes the following:
Decision
ORDER (a) The writ petition is allowed. (b) The order bearing No. RD 213 LGB 2013 dated 07.01.2014 issued by the 1st respondent and the official memorandum bearing No. LND(De) SR 24/12- 13 dated 27.01.2014 issued by the 2nd respondent, are hereby quashed and set aside. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE VP