Karnataka High Court
Syed Shahibull Hussaini vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 5 November, 2024
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8074
WP No. 202427 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 202427 OF 2024 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
1. SYED SHAHIBULL HUSSAINI
S/O SYED IBRAHIM HUSSAINI
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. HUSSAINI MANZIL SAHEB ONI
GOGI (K) VILLAGE,TQ. SHAHAPUR
DIST. YADGIRI - 585 309.
2. SYED RAHIMAN HUSSAINI
S/O SYED IBRAHIM HUSSAINI
AGED ABOUT -- YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
Digitally signed 3. SYED JAFER HUSSAINI
by SUMITRA
SHERIGAR S/O SYED IBRAHIM HUSSAINI
Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT - YEARS
COURT OF OCC: AGRICULTURE
KARNATAKA
4. SYED SAHALULA HUSSAINI
S/O SYED IBRAHIM HUSSAINI
AGED ABOUT - YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
5. SYED GOUSULA HUSSAINI
S/O SYED IBRAHIM HUSSAINI
AGED ABOUT - YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8074
WP No. 202427 of 2024
6. SYED CHANDA HUSSAINI
S/O SYED IBRAHIM HUSSAINI
AGED ABOUT - YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
ALL ARE R/O HUSSAINI MOHZIL SAHEB ONI
GOGI (K) VILLAGE TQ. SHAHAPUR
DIST. YADGIR - 585 309.
(AMENDED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED:25.09.2024)
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. PUNITH MARKAL,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
MS BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER
KALABURAGI, DIST. KALABURAGI
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
YADGIRI, DISTRICT YADGIRI.
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
YADGIRI, DIST. YADGIRI - 585 201.
5. THE TAHASILDAR
SHAHAPUR, DIST. YADGIRI - 585 201.
6. THE KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF WAKFS
"DARULA A WAKF" NO.6,
CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MAYA T.R., HCGP FOR R1 TO R5;
SRI NARESH V. KULKARNI ADV. FOR R6)
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8074
WP No. 202427 of 2024
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR
ORDER OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.5 TO
DELETE THE NAME OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT, IN RESPECT OF LAND
BEARING SY.NO.800/*/HISSA-A, MEASURING TO THE EXTENT OF 03
ACRES 16 GUNTAS, OUT OF 10 ACRES, SITUATED AT SITUATED AT
GOGI(K) VILLAGE, HOBLI GOGI, TALUK: SHAHAPUR,
DISTRICT:YADGIRI, IN COLUMN NO.11 FROM THE RECORD OF
RIGHTS VIDE ANNEXURE-B, B1 TO B5, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
In this petition, the petitioners seek for the following
reliefs:
(a) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other
appropriate writ or order or direction, directing the
respondent No.5 to delete the name of the 6th
respondent, in respect of land bearing
Sy.No.800/*/hissa-A, Measuring to the extent of 03
acres 16 guntas, out of 10 acres, situated at situated at
Gogi(K) village, Hobli Gogi, Taluk: Shahapur,
District:Yadgiri, in column no.11 from the record of rights
vide Annexure-B, B1 to B5, in the interest of justice.
(b) Pass such other orders or directions as this Hon'ble
Court deems just and proper under the facts and
circumstances of the case and allow this writ petition, in
the interest of justice and equity.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8074
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned HCGP for respondent No.1 to 5 and learned
counsel for the respondent No.6 and perused the material
on record.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate
that under identical circumstances, the Judgments / orders
of this Court in the cases of Chand Sab vs. State of
Karnataka & others - W.P.No.202965/2022 dated
06.01.2023 and M.Ravindra Reddy vs. State of
Karnataka & others - W.P.No.200340/2021 dated
23.02.2021, this Court allowed the aforesaid petitions
and passed the following orders:-
ORDER PASSED IN W.P.No.202965/2022
"Heard Sri. Shivaputra S. Udabalkar, the learned
Counsel for the petitioner.
2. In this petition, the petitioner seeking writ of
mandamus to delete the name of Mojangiri Sunni Waqt
Property, in column Nos.9 and 12 in the RTC marked at
Annexure-C.
3. It is contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that without issuing any notice and without
following procedure contemplated under the Karnataka
Land Revenue Act, the name of Mojangri Sunni Wagf
Property, is ordered to be entered in column Nos.9 and 12
of RTC.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8074
4. The learned Government Advocate would
justify the order with reference to Circular dated
04.01.2010, which is produced in W.P.No.201590/2022.
5. It is needless to say that the Circular cannot
Over-ride the provision of the Karnataka Land Revenue
Act. For effecting changes in the RTC the procedure
contemplated under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, is
to be followed. The said procedure is not followed. Notice
is not issued to the petitioner before making changes in
the RTC. The impugned entries are made behind the back
of the petitioner.
6. Under these circumstances, the petition is
allowed.
7. The respondents No.5 to 6 are directed to
delete the name of the Mojangiri sunni Wagf Property in
column Nos.9 and 12 of the RTC, within 10 days from the
date of receipt of certified copy of this order and to
restore the entries as it stood earlier to impugned entry.
8. However, it is made clear that this Court has
not expressed the rights of the petitioner.
9. The respondent No.5 may initiate proceedings
pursuant to Circular if so advised in law. In such an event,
the respondent No.5 shall issue notice to the petitioner
and respondents No.6 before passing further orders
pursuant to Circular."
ORDER PASSED IN W.P.NO.200340/2021
1. Sri.Mallikarjun Sahukar, learned HCGP accepts
notice for respondent Nos.1 to 5.
2. Sri.P.S.Malipatil, learned counsel accepts notice
for respondent No.6.
3. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for a
certiorari to quash the extract of the mutation dated
19.09.2018 bearing MR No.H124 vide Annexures-D and
D1 in respect of Sy.No.301/5 wherein respondent No.5-
Tahsildar has entered the name respondent No.6 - Wakf
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8074
Board as also for a mandamus directing the respondent
No.5 to delete the name of respondent No.6 in respect of
aforesaid survey number from the record of rights and
restore the name of the petitioner.
4. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner in
enjoyment and in actual possession of the land bearing
Sy.No.301/5 measuring 2 acres 29 guntas situated at
Manvi Village, Manvi Taluk, Raichur District. The aforesaid
land had been granted to one Smt.Syeda Sajjada Peera
W/o Wahid Quadri, under the provisions of Inams
Abolition Act in the year 1982 as regards which Form
No.II was issued on 20.03.1982. Thereafter, the said
Smt.Syeda Sajjada Peera approached the Assistant
Commissioner, Raichur for permission to sell the land
which was granted vide Annexure-A dated 17.09.1991. In
pursuance of which, the petitioner's father purchased the
aforesaid land by registered sale deed dated 19.09.1991
and the name of the petitioner' father had been entered in
the revenue records on 19.09.2018. Subsequent to the
purchase, the name of the father of the petitioner was
entered. After the death of the father of the petitioner,
the name of the petitioner came to be entered into in the
revenue records in the year 2017.
5. Respondent No.2-Regional Commissioner has
issued a office note relying on the government
notification/circular directing the revenue authorities-
Deputy Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner and Wakf
officer to enter the name of Wakf Board as owners of
lands, which were notified as that belonging to the Wakf
Board in the records of rights. On the basis of the said
direction, respondent No.5-Tahsildar without issuing
notice unilaterally entered the name of the Wakf Board in
the year 2011 of the records of rights. It is aggrieved by
the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
6. Sri.Mahantesh Patil, learned counsel for the
petitioner would submit that there is no such right vested
with the respondents to insert the name of the
respondent No.6 - Wakf Board.
7. Sri.P.S.Malipatil, learned counsel for respondent
No.6 would submit that the entry has been made in terms
of notification issued in the year 1974 recognising the
Wakf to be the owner of the property and as such, by
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8074
following the procedure under Rule 6 and Rule 7 of the
Karnataka Wakf Rules, 2017, the name of the respondent
No.6 Wakf Board was mutated and entered into the
records of rights. As such, what has been done is correct
and
proper.
8. Sri.Mallikarjun Sahukar, learned HCGP submits
that the Tahsildar has acted in terms of office note issued
by respondent No.2-Regional Commissioner who has in
turn acted on notification of the year 1974 and Rule 6 and
Rule 7 of Karnataka Wakf Rules, 2017.
9. Heard Sri.Mahantesh Patil, learned counsel for
the petitioner, Sri.Mallikarjun Sahukar, learned High Court
Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and
Sri.P.S.Malipatil, learned counsel for respondent No.6 and
perused the papers.
10. The petitioner claims that the land has been
granted to Smt.Syeda Sajjada Peera in the year 1973-74
and her name was entered in the revenue records
whereas the Wakf Board claims that they are the owners
of the land in terms of the notification issued in the year
1974. On the basis of this claim and counter claim as
regards ownership of the land, there is a dispute between
the parties.
11. In this background on basis of the notification
of the year 1974, the Wakf Board wrote a letter to the
respondent No.5 - Tahsildar to enter the name of the
Wakf Board in the revenue records and Tahsildar acting
on the said request has made the said entry along with
the name of the petitioner whose name was already found
in the revenue records in Column 11.
12. The Karnataka Land Revenue Act provides for a
mode and methodology for making entries, carrying out
mutation, etc., in the revenue records. One of the cardinal
rules being that if any person's name to be effected in the
revenue records or for any change in the revenue records,
notice has to be issued and principles of natural justice
has to be followed and the said party has to be heard and
thereafter orders to be passed.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8074
13. In the present case, all these aspects has been
violated merely because the Wakf Board has sent a
request to the respondent No.5 to enter the name of the
Walkf Board in Column 11. Such a process and procedure
is unknown to law. Once a name of the third party is
entered in the revenue records, if the Wakf Board seeks
to get its name in the records, the Wakf Board is required
to follow the process and procedure under the Land
Revenue Act including Section 136 of the said Act. Further
more, the Tahsildar is required to follow the procedure
under Rule 128 and 129 of the Land Revenue Rules
before making any change. None of these are followed in
the present case.
14. There is highhandedness in the matter in which
Wakf Board wrote a letter to the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar
has blindly considered the request of the Wakf Board and
acted on.
15. In view thereof and since there is a serious
lapse of procedural aspect, a certiorari is issued quashing
the order dated 19.09.2018 inserting the name of the
Wakf Board in Column 11 of the records of rights.
Consequently, a mandamus is issued directing the
respondent No.5-Tahsildar, Manvi to delete the name of
respondent No.6 within a period of four weeks from the
date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Liberty is
reserved to respondent No.6-Wakf Board to follow the
applicable law and due procedure of law if at all it has any
right, title or interest in the said property for inserting of
the name in the Records of Rights.
16. Learned HCGP is directed to communicate this
order to the Regional Commissioner, Deputy
Commissioner and Tahsildar within the jurisdiction of this
Court so that these kind of orders are not passed putting
innocent parties at risk behind their back.
17. Accordingly, the Writ petition is allowed."
4. The aforesaid orders passed by this Court in
Chand Sab's case and M.Ravindra Reddy's case
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8074
supra, are directly and squarely applicable to the facts of
the instant case and consequently, the present petition
also deserves to be allowed and disposed of in terms of
the orders passed in the aforesaid petitions.
5. It is also relevant to state that though the name
of the petitioners appear in Column Nos. 9 and 12 of the
RTC in relation to the subject land, respondent Nos.3 to 5
have purported to insert the name of respondent No.6 in
Column No.11, without notifying or providing sufficient or
reasonable opportunity to the petitioners, thereby violating
the principles of natural justice. Under these
circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the
alleged entry in Column No.11 showing the name of the
respondent No.6 deserves to be set aside and the matter
be remitted back to respondent Nos.3 and 4 for
reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.
6. In the result, I pass the following:-
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8074
ORDER
(i) Petition is hereby allowed and disposed
of in terms of the orders passed by this Court in
the cases of Chand Sab vs. State of
Karnataka & others - W.P.No.202965/2022
dated 06.01.2023 and M.Ravindra Reddy vs.
State of Karnataka & others -
W.P.No.200340/2021 dated 23.02.2021.
(ii) The impugned entry in Column No.11
showing the name of the respondent No.6 in
relation to the subject lands bearing
Sy.No.800/*/hissa-A, measuring to the extent of
03 acres 16 guntas, out of 10 acres, situated at
situated at Gogi(K) village, Hobli Gogi, Taluk:
Shahapur, District:Yadgiri, is hereby set aside.
(iii) The matter is remitted back to
respondent Nos.3 and 4 for reconsideration
afresh in accordance with law.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8074
(iv) Respondent Nos.3 to 5 shall notify the
petitioners and respondent No.6 and reconsider
the matter afresh after providing sufficient and
reasonable opportunity to all the parties and
pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
(v) Respondent Nos.3 to 5 are directed to
delete the name of respondent No.6 in Column
No.11 of the RTCs in relation to the subject land
within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
(vi) Respondent Nos.3 to 4 are directed to
conclude the proceedings within a period of three
months form the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
SVH
