Karnataka High Court
City Municipal Council vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3634
WP No. 109736 of 2016
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO.109736 OF 2016 (GM-WAKF)
BETWEEN:
CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
RANEBENNUR, REP. BY
ITS COMMISSIONER, DIST: HAVERI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. DINESH M.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF WAQF,
M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BANGALORE.
2. THE KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF WAQFS,
VIJAYALAKSHMI
M KANKUPPI NO.6, KANNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE-52,
BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
Digitally signed by
VIJAYALAKSHMI
M KANKUPPI 3. THE MANAGING COMMITTEE,
Date: 2026.03.12
11:08:52 +0530
THE ANZUMAN-E-ISLAM RANEBENNUR,
DIST: HAVERI, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT.
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. KIRTILATA R.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 AND R4;
SRI. B. MUHAMED ALI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. SADIQ N.GOODWALA, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3634
WP No. 109736 of 2016
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) TO ISSUE
A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH ORDER
PASSED BY THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AND WAKF TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI IN CASE
NO.KWT/HVR/SR/PETITION NO.4/2012, DATED 05.07.2014 VIDE
ANNEXURE-H, AS NULL AND VOID, AND; B) TO SET ASIDE THE
GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 09.01.2003 IN SO FAR AS THE
PROPERTIES BEARING NO.2109 (PART OF R.S.NO.806),
CTS.NO.1858/F, CTS NO.4/A-1A1, CTS NO.1981/A, CTS
NO.2048/13, CTS NO.2078/14A, CTS NO.2078/14B, CTS
NO.3218/A-2A, R.S.NO.312 & CTS.NO.1060/A VIDE ANNEXURE-
B, AS NULL AND VOID IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY AND ETC.,.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN
AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)
1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the judgment dated 05.07.2014 passed by the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge and Karnataka Wakf Tribunal, Belagavi in KWT/HVR/SR/Petition No.4/2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Wakf Tribunal').
2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:
3. The petitioner is the custodian of the immovable properties vested in the Municipal Council as per Section 81 of -3- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3634 WP No. 109736 of 2016 HC-KAR the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964. It is averred that recently a dispute arose between the petitioner and respondent No.3 with regard to CTS No.1981/A when the petitioner attempted to put up a compound wall. At that time, it was noticed that respondent No.2 had published a notification dated 26.06.1975 and included the said property in the list of properties belonging to the Wakf in Ranebennur Taluk, which was subsequently published in the State Gazette dated 09.01.2003 declaring the said properties as Wakf properties.
4. It is contended that property bearing No.806 stands in the name of the petitioner and the records do not indicate that any portion of the said property is a Wakf property. It is further stated that property bearing CTS No.1858 was handed over to the petitioner by the State in 1927. Insofar as property bearing CTS No.1981/A1 is concerned, reference is made to the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 20.12.1941, wherein the land was reserved for a graveyard of the Muslim community. However, the said allotment was cancelled in 1942 and thereafter no further entries were made in the records up to 1986.
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3634 WP No. 109736 of 2016 HC-KAR
5. It is stated that the properties bearing CTS Nos.2048/13, 2078/14A and 2078/14B are held by private individuals on a lease basis and the said leaseholders have subsequently transferred their rights in favour of respondent No.3.
6. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the Gazette notification insofar as it relates to the aforesaid properties, filed a writ petition in W.P. No.65859/2010. The said writ petition was disposed of with an observation that an alternative remedy was available, and a liberty was granted to the petitioner to avail the said remedy before the Wakf Tribunal.
7. Being aggrieved by the order passed in the said writ petition, the petitioner preferred a writ appeal in W.A. No.6450/2010. The said writ appeal came to be dismissed reserving a liberty to agitate rights before appropriate forum under the Wakf Act.
8. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a review petition and the said review petition came to be rejected.
9. Subsequently, the petitioner approached the Wakf Tribunal by filing a suit.
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3634 WP No. 109736 of 2016 HC-KAR
10. The respondents, while reiterating the averments made in the writ petition, filed their statement of objections. The respondents, in its objections, contended that the properties in question are Wakf properties and that the petitioner has no right, title, or interest over the said properties. It was further contended that the claim made by the petitioner is barred by limitation. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the suit.
11. The Tribunal, without recording the evidence, framed the following points for consideration:
1) Whether the applicant has made out sufficient ground to declare that the suit properties are not the Wakf properties published in the Gazette notification dated 09.01.2003?
2) What order?
12. The Tribunal, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, answered Point No.1 in the negative and, consequently, dismissed the application filed under Section 7(1) read with Rule 68(2) of the Karnataka Wakf Act as not maintainable, vide Judgment dated 05.07.2014. -6-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3634 WP No. 109736 of 2016 HC-KAR
13. The petitioner, aggrieved by the order passed by the Wakf Tribunal, has filed this writ petition.
14. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned counsel for the respondents.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed a suit before the Wakf Tribunal. However, the Wakf Tribunal got confused regarding the nature of the petition and erroneously treated it as a revision petition instead of considering the dispute before the proper forum. It is contended that the judgment passed by the Wakf Tribunal is arbitrary and erroneous, and that the Tribunal did not properly examine the records produced by the petitioner. Hence, on these grounds, he prays for allow the writ petition.
16. Per contra, learned counsel for the Wakf Tribunal supports the impugned order and contends that the petitioner filed an application and not a suit. It is submitted that the Tribunal was justified in holding that the application filed by the petitioner was not maintainable and, therefore, rightly passed -7- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3634 WP No. 109736 of 2016 HC-KAR the impugned judgment. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.
17. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
18. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner, prior to filing the present writ petition, approached this Court in Writ Petition No.65859/2010. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 28.09.2010, wherein the petitioner challenged the Gazette notification dated 09.01.2003 containing the list of Wakf properties, including the properties which are the subject matter of the present petition. In the said order, this Court observed that whether the properties were wrongly included as Wakf, or whether the petitioner could claim to be an interested person, owner, or in actual possession and enjoyment of the properties as of the date of filing the writ petition, were matters that could not be gone into in the writ petition.
19. The disputed questions can be agitated only before the proper forum, and liberty was reserved to the petitioner to avail such remedy. Aggrieved by the order passed in the -8- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3634 WP No. 109736 of 2016 HC-KAR aforementioned writ petition, the petitioner filed Writ Appeal No.6450/2010. The Hon'ble Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal vide order dated 24.05.2011. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a review petition in RP No.1555/2011, which was dismissed by order dated 14.12.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Wakf Tribunal by filing a suit. A copy of the plaint is produced and marked as Annexure-F. On perusal of the cause title, it is clear that the petitioner had filed a suit and not an application. The Tribunal, however, recorded the finding in paragraph No.18, which reads as follows:
"18. Therefore when the applicant seeking declaratory relief, which is comprehensive in nature, which requires full pledged trial, since the respondent in the instant case disputing said aspect and submitted that those properties are not the Wakf properties. Hence, the matter shall have to be investigated and the parties will have to prove their case by placing cogent and acceptable evidence before the court in the form of oral and documentary to substantiate as to their contentions in the application and the objections filed to the application. Therefore, looking to the averments of the petition as well as objections to the petition there is assertion -9- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3634 WP No. 109736 of 2016 HC-KAR and denial of the facts and therefore, the parties will have to adduce evidence on their behalf. At the same time even though the applicant was being directed to work out the remedy under the Wakf Act, but the applicant has not approached this court by way of filing the suit, since applicant has sought for declaration. In that context the applicant had relied on the documents at Sl.No.1 to 14, which are said to be the property extracts, order in writ petition, order in writ appeal and order in revision petition. Therefore, after careful perusal of the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the above said writ petition, appeal and revision petition it is crystal clear that whether the properties are wrongly included in the Wakf and whether the petitioner can claim to be interested person or owner of the properties or its actual possession and enjoyment of the same as on today, or maters which cannot be come into the revision petition. That disputed questions can be agitated only before the proper forum. Therefore, the petitioner was given liberty to avail such remedy."
20. From the perusal of paragraph No.18 of the impugned judgment which clearly discloses that, though the petitioner has filed a suit, but wherein the Tribunal has recorded
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3634 WP No. 109736 of 2016 HC-KAR its finding that the plaintiff has not filed a suit for declaration but had filed applications and that the disputed question can be agitated only before the proper forum. However, without looking into the contents of the plaint produced as Annexure-F, the Tribunal wrongly come to a conclusion that the petitioner had filed an application under Section 7(1) read with Rule 68(2) of Karnataka Wakf Act.
21. From a perusal of the prayer sought by the petitioner in Annexure-F, which is a copy of the plaint, it discloses that the petitioner has sought a declaration that the properties referred to in the gazette notification dated 09.01.2003, as mentioned in the prayer column, are not Wakf properties.
22. The said relief sought by the petitioner falls under Section 7 of the Karnataka Wakf Act, 1995. As regards Rule 68(2) is concerned that does not attract the present suit, as Section 68(2) pertains to removal of a Mutawalli.
23. The Tribunal, without considering this aspect, has dismissed the suit on the ground that it is an application filed under Section 7(1) read with Rule 68(2) of the Karnataka Wakf Act. The reasons assigned by the Wakf Tribunal in the impugned judgment are arbitrary and erroneous.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3634 WP No. 109736 of 2016 HC-KAR
24. Hence for the reasons stated above, the impugned judgment is liable to be set-aside.
25. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) The Impugned order passed by the Wakf
Tribunal, Belagavi in KWT/HVR/SR/Petition
No.4/2012, dated 05.07.2014 vide
Annexure-H is hereby set aside.
(iii) The suit filed by the petitioner is restored to its original file.
(iv) The Wakf Tribunal is directed to dispose of the suit filed by the petitioner in accordance with law.
(v) All the contentions of the parties are kept open.
(vi) Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE RHR/-CT: UMD List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1