Karnataka High Court
The Board Of Trust & Muslim vs Smt N M Kamalamma on 28 January, 2025
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:3902
WP No. 55686 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
WRIT PETITION NO. 55686 OF 2017 (GM-PP)
BETWEEN:
THE BOARD OF TRUST & MUSLIM,
ENDOWMENTS,) (WAKF) JAMIA,
MASJID ADMINISTRATION,
JAMIA MASJID ROAD,
CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 101.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. S.R.ANURADHA., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. SABAHATH SULTANA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT N.M.KAMALAMMA
D/O LATE MAHADEVAIAH,
SINCE DECEASED BY LR'S,
Digitally signed by
THEJASKUMAR N 1(a) MR. HARINAKSHI
Location: HIGH D/O LATE N.M.KAMALAMMA,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
1(b) MR. ANANDA
S/O LATE N.M.KAMALAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
1(c) MR. LINGAMURTHY
S/O LATE N.M.KAMALAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
1(d) MR. RENUKASWAMY
S/O LATE N.M.KAMALAMMA,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:3902
WP No. 55686 of 2017
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
1(e) MR. CHANDRAPPA
H/O LATE N.M.KAMALAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
2. MR. N.M.SHANKARAMURTHY
S/O LATE MAHADEVIAH,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
3. MRS. N.M.HEMAVATHI
S/O LATE MAHADEVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
HOUSE WIFE,
4. MRS. N.M.DHAKSHAYANI
S/O LATE MAHADEVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
5. MR. N.M.MALLIKARJUNA
S/O LATE MAHADEVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
6. MR. N.M.HAREESH
S/O LATE MAHADEVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
7. SRI. N.M.LINGASWAMY
S/O LATE MAHADEVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
8. MRS. N.M.LOKESHWARI
D/O LATE MAHADEVIAH,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
9. MRS. N.M.BHAGYA
D/O LATE MAHADEVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:3902
WP No. 55686 of 2017
10. MR. N.M.DIVAKARA
S/O LATE MAHADEVIAH,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
ALL ARE HOUSEWIVES AND
AGRICULUTURISTS AND
R/O NELLUR VILLAGE, KASABHA HOBLI,
CHIKMAGALURU TALUK-577 101.
11. MRS. NIRMALA P.SHETTY,
W/O PADMANABHA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
BUSINESSMAN,
R/O BASAVANAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
CHIKMAGALURU CITY-577 101.
12. THE COMPETENT OFFICER & ADDL. CEO
KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF WAKFS,
CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 052.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SWATHI ASHOK., ADVOCATE FOR R12;
R1(a-e), R2 TO 11-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN
RELIEFS.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS
UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
Smt.S.R.Anuradha., Senior counsel on behalf of
Sri.Sabahath Sultana., for the petitioner has appeared in
person.
NC: 2025:KHC:3902
Notice to the respondents was ordered on 12.12.2017. A
perusal of the office note depicts that respondents 1 to 11 are
served and unrepresented. They have neither engaged the
services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in
person.
2. The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of
Certiorari to quash the Judgment dated 30.10.2017 passed by
the Prl. District Judge, Chikkmagalur in M.A.No.18/2016 vide
Annexure-A and the order dated 30.10.2017 passed by the Prl.
District Judge, Chikkmagalur in M.A.No.18/2016 signed on
13.11.2017 vide Annexure-A1.
3. Senior counsel for the petitioner has urged several
contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers
with care.
4. The original proceedings before the Competent
Officer under Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974 was initiated against one
R.M.Hukmichand and an order of eviction was passed on
03.11.2015 in respect of a property comprised in Jamia and
Sangeen Mosques etc., (Sunni) represented by its Muthawalli,
NC: 2025:KHC:3902
the Board of Trust Muslim Endowments, Chickmagalur.
Respondents 1 to 10 herein assailed the order dated
03.11.2015 before the Prl. District Judge, Chikkamagaluru in
M.A.No.18/2016. The District Judge vide Judgment dated
30.10.2017 set-aside the order of eviction and remitted the
matter to consider the claim made by third parties.
Suffice it to note that respondents 1 to 10 who are the
appellants before the District Court, were not parties to the
original proceedings. Moreover, the eviction order was passed
against one R.M.Hukmichand. He has accepted the order of
eviction and has not questioned the same. The respondents 1
to 10 have no locus to question the order of eviction.
Furthermore, they did not seek permission to prosecute the
appeal before the District Judge. The District Judge has
overlooked these aspects of the matter and has erroneously
entertained the appeal. This is unsustainable in law. Therefore,
the order passed by the District Judge is liable to be set-aside
and so, it is set-aside.
5. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The Judgment
dated 30.10.2017 passed by the Prl. District Judge,
NC: 2025:KHC:3902
Chikkmagalur in M.A.No.18/2016 vide Annexure-A and the
order dated 30.10.2017 passed by the Prl. District Judge,
Chikkmagalur in M.A.No.18/2016 signed on 13.11.2017 vide
Annexure-A1.
6. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed.
Sd/-
(JYOTI MULIMANI)
JUDGE
TKN
