Karnataka High Court
The Managing Committee vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 May, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:17618
WP NO.8809 OF 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.8809 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGING COMMITTEE
JAMIA MASJID, KHABARSTAN AND IDGAH (SUNNI)
MOLAKALMURU - 577 535.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,
SRI. SYED NABI
S/O SYED NADE ALI,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
R/O MUBARAK MOHALLA,
MOLAKALMURU
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 535.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. D.L. JAGADEESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. RAHAMATHULLA KOTHWAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
SHARMA ANAND CHAYA
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Location: High Court of REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
Karnataka
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S. BUILDINGS,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
BENGALURU DIVISION, 2ND FLOOR,
B.M.T.C. BUILDING,
SHANTHINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 027.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:17618
WP NO.8809 OF 2024
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT,
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
CHITRADURGA,
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
5. THE TAHASILDAR
MOLKALMURU TALUK,
MOLKALMURU - 577 535.
6. THE KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF WAKFS
NO.6, "DARUL AWKAF",
CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 052.
REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
7. SRI. SYED DASTAGIR
S/O SYED NADE ALI,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/O KALGODU MOHALLA,
MOLAKALMURU,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 535.
PROCLAIMING HIMSELF
AS THE SECRETARY OF
DARGAH HAZARATH
SYED HAYATH BASHA,
KHADARI DARGAH COMMITTEE (R)
MOLAKALMURU.
8. HAZARATH SYED HAYATH BASHA,
KHADRI DARGAH COMMITTEE,
MOLAKALMURU - 577535.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.
9. HAZARATH SYED HAYATH BASHA
KHADRI DARGAH, COMMITTEE
MOLAKALMURU - 577535
REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:17618
WP NO.8809 OF 2024
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R5;
SRI. ZAMEER PASHA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R7, R8 AND R9)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08TH FEBRUARY, 2024 PASSED IN
REVISION APPEAL NOS.1199 AND 1200 OF 2017 (CH-1) BY
THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU VIDE
ANNEXURE-A; AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Smt. B.P. Radha, learned Additional Government
Advocate accepts notice for respondents 1 to 5 and Sri. Zameer
Pasha, learned counsel entered appearance for
Caveator/respondents 7 to 9.
2. In this writ petition, petitioner is assailing the order
dated 08th February, 2024 (Annexure-A) passed in Revision
Appeal Nos.1199 and 1200 of 2017 on the file of the Karnataka
Appellate Tribunal.
3. The relevant facts for adjudication of this writ petition
are that, there is a dispute between the petitioner and the rival
NC: 2024:KHC:17618
WP NO.8809 OF 2024
private respondents with regard to the property situate at
Survey Nos.2/1B and 2/1A of Molakalmuru village,
Molakalmuru Taluk, Chitradurga District. Perusal of the writ
petition would indicate that, order dated 05th October, 2006
(Annexure-AE) passed by the respondent No.3 in L.N.D
CR/142/2006-07 was challenged before the Karnataka
Appellate Tribunal in Revision Appeal Nos.1199 and 1200 of
2017 and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, after considering
the fact that there is delay of more than a decade in
challenging the order dated 05th October, 2006, dismissed the
Revision Appeal on the ground of delay and laches, by order
dated 08th February, 2024. Being aggrieved by the same, the
petitioner is before this Court.
4. Heard Sri. D.L. Jagadeesh, learned Senior Counsel on
behalf of Sri. Rahamathulla Kothwal, appearing for the
petitioner; Smt. B.P. Radha, learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 5; and Sri. Zameer
Pasha, learned counsel appearing for Caveator/respondents 7
to 9.
NC: 2024:KHC:17618
WP NO.8809 OF 2024
5. Sri. D.L. Jagadeesh, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioner submits that the order which is
challenged before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal is without
jurisdiction and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal has no
jurisdiction to entertain the Revision appeal. It is also
submitted that the reasons assigned by the Karnataka
Appellate Tribunal while dismissing the appeal on the ground of
delay and laches are not acceptable reasons. Accordingly he
sought for interference of this Court.
6. Per contra, Sri. Zameer Pasha, learned counsel
appearing for Caveator/respondents 7 to 9 filed memo
enclosing the judgment and decree dated 13th March, 2019
passed in Original Suit No.11 of 2017 connected with Original
Suit No.4 of 2018 and submitted that the petitioner has filed
suit against the respondents, seeking relief of declaration and
permanent injunction and the said suit came to be dismissed on
13th March, 2019 and therefore, the said aspect has been
considered by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal while
considering the application for delay and laches. He also
submitted that the reasons assigned by the petitioner herein
cannot be accepted as there is no sufficient cause for condoning
NC: 2024:KHC:17618
WP NO.8809 OF 2024
the delay of more than ten years and accordingly, he sought for
dismissal of the writ petition.
7. Smt. B.P. Radha, learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 5 supports the
impugned order produced at Annexure-A and sought for
dismissal of the writ petition.
8. Having taken note of the factual aspects on record,
the petitioner herein has challenged order dated 05th October,
2006 (Annexure-AE) passed by the respondent No.3 before the
Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Revision Appeal Nos.1199 and
1200 of 2017. Undisputably, there is a delay of more than a
decade in challenging the impugned order therein. The
Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, after taking into consideration
the factual aspects on record, has dismissed the Revision
Appeal by assigning the reason that the petitioner has not
shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay of more than a
decade. In this regard, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the petitioner though submits that the Karnataka Appellate
Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the Revision Appeal,
however, the reason stated in the impugned order that the
NC: 2024:KHC:17618
WP NO.8809 OF 2024
petitioner herein had filed Original Suit Nos.11 of 2017 and 4 of
2018 before the Karnataka Wakf Tribunal, Bengaluru and the
said suits came to be dismissed before the Karnataka Wakf
Tribunal is just and proper. It is also submitted that the
judgment and decree in the aforementioned suits reached
finality. So also, there is no material to show that the said
judgment and decree has been challenged before the
competent Authority/Court. Hence, taking into consideration
the reasons stated by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal while
answering points 1 and 2 as mentioned at Paragraphs 10 and
11 of the impugned order and the petitioner is not diligent in
urging his rights, I do not find any acceptable ground to
interfere with this petition. Accordingly, writ petition is
dismissed
SD/-
JUDGE
ARK
