Karnataka High Court
Sri A.Nanjegowda vs State Of Karnataka on 19 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:21225
WP No. 48857 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO. 48857 OF 2014 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI A.NANJEGOWDA,
S/O PATEL ANKEGOWDA,
DIED BY HIS L.R., SMT.GOWRAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.
2. SRI BOREGOWDA,
S/O PATEL ANKEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS.
3. SRI NINGEGOWDA,
S/O PATEL ANKEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/O MURUKANAHALLI,
SHILANERE HOBLI,
K.R.PET TALUK,
Digitally signed by MANDYA DISTRICT.
SHARMA ANAND
CHAYA ...PETITIONERS
Location: HIGH
COURT OF (BY SRI HALESHA R.G.,ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPT. BY SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 01.
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
MANDYA DISTRICT,
MANDYA - 571 401.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:21225
WP No. 48857 of 2014
HC-KAR
3. ASSISTANT COMISSIONER,
PANDAVAPURA DIVISION,
PANDAVAPURA,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 471 401.
4. TAHSILDAR,
K.R.PETE TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 426.
5. SECRETARY,
KARNATAKA WAKF BOARD,
BANGALORE - 03.
6. SHRI RASHEED PASHA,
S/O MOHAMMED BEG SAB,
AGE NOT KNOWN,
PRIEST OF HAJARATH PEER SHA HADRI DARGA,
MURUKANAHALLI,
SHILENERE HOBLI, K.R.PET TALUK - 571 426.
MANDYA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R1 TO R4;)
SMT.S.R.ANURADHA, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL ALONG
WITH SMT.SABAHATH SULTANA, ADVOCATE FOR R5; AND
SRI S.A.SABOOR, ADVOCATE FOR R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14.06.2011 IN
R.P.NO.122/2002 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-N CONFIRMING THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 24.05.2002 IN R.MISC.NO.165/00-01 PASSED
BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-M.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:21225
WP No. 48857 of 2014
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. In this writ petition, the petitioners are assailing
the order dated 14.06.2011 in R.P.No.122/2002 passed by
respondent No.2 (Annexure-N) confirming the order dated
24.05.2002 in R.Mis.No.165/00-01 passed by respondent
No.3 (Annexure-M), inter alia, sought for direction to the
respondents-Authorities, to effect revenue records into the
name of the petitioners.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that, the land
measuring 2 acres 27 guntas in survey No.169/7 situated
at Murukanahalli village, K.R.Pete Taluk, Mandya District,
belonged to one Chennegowda, S/o Boregowda, who had
sold the land in question in favour of the father of the
petitioners, i.e., Late Ankegowda, on two sale deeds dated
06.02.1947 and 10.07.1947.
NC: 2025:KHC:21225
HC-KAR
4. It is stated in the petition that, the petitioners
have purchased the land to an extent of 1 acre 27 guntas
and the remaining 1 acre was the Poot Kharab land, for
which the petitioners have filed Form No.2 seeking patta in
respect of the said land as per Annexure-B. It is also
stated that, the respondents-Authorities have issued the
RTC extracts in favour of the petitioners to the entire
extent of 2 acres 27 guntas in Sy.No.169/7.
5. It is the case of the petitioners that, from 1973-
74 upto 2001-02, the father of the petitioners was in
possession of the land in question and record of rights
stand in the names of the petitioners. Thereafter, there
was a partition in the family and as such, the land to an
extent of 2 acres 27 guntas was mutated in favour of the
petitioners herein as per M.R.No.14/86-87 based on
M.R.No.9/87-88, which is produced at Annexures-H1 and
H2 respectively.
NC: 2025:KHC:21225
HC-KAR
6. It is further stated in the writ petition that, the
proceedings in R.Mis.No.165/00-01 was initiated before
respondent No.3 as per Annexure-M and respondent No.3
by order dated 24.05.2002 allowed the appeal preferred
by the private respondents herein and stated that, the
land to an extent of 1 acre is the Kharab land and as per
the Notification dated 30.10.1964 issued by the State
Government, the land to an extent of 1 acre has been
earmarked for the Wakf Board and therefore, passed an
order at Annexure-M dated 24.05.2002.
7. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners
herein have preferred a Revision Petition before
respondent No.2 in R.P.No.122/2002. Respondent No.2
after considering the material on record vide order dated
14.06.2011, dismissed the Revision Petition and as such,
confirmed the Notification issued by the Government in
respect of the subject land in favour of the Wakf Board.
Being aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is
filed.
NC: 2025:KHC:21225
HC-KAR
8. Heard Sri Halesha R.G., learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners, Sri Manjunath K., learned
High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent
Nos.1 to 4, Smt.S.R.Anuradha, learned Senior Counsel
appearing along with Smt.Sabahath Sultana, learned
counsel for respondent No.5 and Sri S.A.Saboor, learned
counsel appearing for respondent No.6.
9. Sri Halesha R.G., learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners invited the attention of the Court to the
RTC extracts produced at Annexure-G series and
contended that, the entire extent of land in possession
i.e., 2 acres 27 guntas in survey No.169/7 is belonged to
the father of the petitioners having purchased the same
from its erstwhile owner Chennegowda as per the
registered sale deeds referred to above. He also invited
the attention of the Court to the RTC extracts produced by
the respondent-Government through affidavit filed by the
Tahasildhar, K.R.Pete Taluk, wherein the extent of
2.28 acres was shown in the name of the petitioners.
NC: 2025:KHC:21225
HC-KAR
Accordingly, he submitted that, 1 acre of land, which is the
Kharab land, which has been allocated in favour of the
petitioners are concerned and therefore, the impugned
order passed by the respondents-Authorities requires to be
interfered in this writ petition.
10. He further contended that, the petitioners
herein have also made an application to respondent No.4-
Tahasildar seeking regularisation of the Kharab land in
favour of the petitioners are concerned and the same has
been considered by the respondents-Authorities and in
that view of the matter, the petitioners are the absolute
owner to an extent of 2.27 acres of land in Sy.No.169/7
and therefore, sought for interference of this Court.
11. In this regard, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Board of Muslim Wakfs,
Rajasthan v/s Radha Kishan and Others reported in
(1979) 2 Supreme Court Cases 468 and contends that,
NC: 2025:KHC:21225
HC-KAR
declaring particular land in question to be Wakf property in
terms of the Wakf Act is not binding insofar as the private
parties are concerned, in the event that, the private
parties are in possession of the land in question.
Accordingly, sought for interference of this Court.
12. Per contra, Smt.S.R.Anuradha, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for respondent No.5 submitted that, the
land to an extent of 1 acre 27 guntas was purchased by
the father of the petitioners and subject land in the
present writ petition, i.e., 1 acre of land is Kharab land,
which has been notified as per the Government
Notification in favour of the Wakf Board. It is further
contended by the learned Senior Counsel that, as dispute
is with regard to the title of the properties are concerned,
it is expedient for this Court to direct the petitioners to
establish their rights in the manner known to law.
Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition.
NC: 2025:KHC:21225
HC-KAR
13. It is also contended by the learned Senior
Counsel appearing for respondent No.5-Wakf Board that,
the said land has been allotted in favour of respondent
No.5-Wakf Board as per the Notification dated 30.10.1964
and the land to an extent of 1 acre has been notified to
respondent No.5 as per the Government Notification dated
30.10.1964 and therefore, since the said Notification is
unchallenged by the petitioners herein till date, no relief
would be granted to the petitioners in this writ petition.
Insofar as the judgment referred to by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners in the case of Board of
Muslim Wakfs, Rajasthan (supra) that, the declaration
of the law made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said
case is to relegate the parties to establish their rights in
respect of the subject land before a competent Civil Court
and in that view of the matter, counter submissions made
by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners,
cannot be accepted.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21225
HC-KAR
14. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6
argued on similar lines to that of learned High Court
Government Pleader, referring to an affidavit (paragraph
7) filed by the Tahasildar, K.R.Pete Taluk and contended
that, the scheduled land is a private land and not a
Government/Gomala land and therefore, he contended
that, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed by
confirming the impugned orders passed by the
respondents-Authorities.
15. In light of the submission made by the learned
counsel appearing for the parties and on careful
examination of the writ papers, it would indicate that, the
father of the petitioners is said to have purchased the land
to an extent of 1 acre 27 guntas in survey No. 169/7 and
further, the subject matter of the land in the writ petition,
with regard to 1 acre in excess of the same being Kharab
land. Again, on careful examination of the writ papers, it
would indicate that, the petitioners have made an
application to the Tahasildar, K.R.Pete, seeking allotment
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21225
HC-KAR
of the said Kharab land being adjacent land of the
petitioners as per Annexure-F.
16. In light of the said aspect, it is also forthcoming
from the RTC extracts as per Annexure-G series appended
to an affidavit filed by the Tahasildar, K.R.Pete Taluk that,
total extent in survey No.169/7 is 2.28 acres, wherein the
name of the petitioners as well as respondent No.5 find
place in their record of rights.
17. By taking into consideration aforementioned
aspects on record, as the affidavit filed by respondent
No.4-Tahasildar would indicate that, 2.28 acres of land in
the present writ petition, is considered to be as a Hiduvali
land and therefore, taking into consideration the fact that,
as per the Government Notification dated 30.10.1964 the
land in question has been notified as per the provisions
contained under the Wakf Act and in that view of the
matter, taking into consideration whether the application
made by the petitioners herein at Annexure-F has been
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21225
HC-KAR
considered and further, the total extent of 2.28 acres has
been made in favour of the petitioners herein has to be
re-considered by the respondent-Authorities, afresh. In
the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order
dated 24.05.2002 at Annexure-M passed by respondent
No.3 and the order dated 14.06.2011 at Annexure-N
passed by respondent No.2 are hereby set aside and the
matter is remitted to the respondent No.3-Assistant
Commissioner to consider the entire case of the parties on
merits after affording opportunity to the petitioners as well
as the representatives of the Wakf Board and respondent
No.6 and take a decision in the matter in accordance with
law. The said exercise has to be made at the earliest.
18. All contentions of the parties are kept open to
be urged before the competent authority.
Sd/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
CPN
