Karnataka High Court
The Chief Administrative Officer vs Md.Ayaz Khan And Ors on 27 June, 2025
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3443-DB
WA No. 200307 of 2024
C/W WA No. 200308 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA
WRIT APPEAL NO.200307 OF 2024 (KLR-CON)
C/W
WRIT APPEAL NO.200308 OF 2024 (KLR-CON)
IN WRIT APPEAL NO.200307 OF 2024:
BETWEEN:
THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF AUKAF,
#6 CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 052.
REPRESENTED THROUGH DISTRICT WAKF
Digitally signed by COMMITTEE, BIDAR - 585 401.
BASALINGAPPA
SHIVARAJ
DHUTTARGAON ...APPELLANT
Location: HIGH
COURT OF (BY SRI. SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. MD.AYAZ KHAN
S/O MD. KHURSHID KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: AGRICULTURE AND
TRUSTEE, NOOR EDUCATION TRUST,
NOOR COLLEGE PREMISES,
HYDERABAD ROAD,
BIDAR-585 401.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3443-DB
WA No. 200307 of 2024
C/W WA No. 200308 of 2024
HC-KAR
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH SECRETARY,
TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BIDAR, D.C. OFFICE,
BIDAR - 585 401.
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
A.C. OFFICE,
BIDAR - 585 401.
5. THE TAHASILDAR,
BIDAR TAHASIL OFFICE,
BIDAR-585 401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAVI B.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY- GA FOR R2 TO R5)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
HIGH COURT ACT 1964, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE PASSED IN
WP.NO.200460/2024 DATED 14.02.2024, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN WRIT APPEAL NO. 200308/2024:
BETWEEN
THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF AUKAF,
#6 CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 052.
REPRESENTED THROUGH DISTRICT WAKF
COMMITTEE, BIDAR - 585 401.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3443-DB
WA No. 200307 of 2024
C/W WA No. 200308 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND:
1. MD.AYAZ KHAN
S/O MD. KHURSHID KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: AGRICULTURE AND
TRUSTEE, NOOR EDUCATION TRUST,
NOOR COLLEGE PREMISES,
HYDERABAD ROAD,
BIDAR-585 401.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH SECRETARY, TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BIDAR, D.C. OFFICE,
BIDAR - 585 401.
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
A.C. OFFICE,
BIDAR - 585 401.
5. THE TAHASILDAR, BIDAR
TAHASIL OFFICE,
BIDAR-585 401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAVI B.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY- GA FOR R2 TO R5)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
HIGH COURT ACT 1964, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE PASSED IN
WP.NO.200466/2024 DATED 14.02.2024, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3443-DB
WA No. 200307 of 2024
C/W WA No. 200308 of 2024
HC-KAR
THESE WRIT APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 16.06.2025 COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED
THERE AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
AND
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K. S. HEMALEKHA)
The intra Court appeals have been preferred by the Chief
Administrative Officer, Karnataka State Board of Aukaf
('Appellant Board', for short).
2. W.A.No.200307/2024 arises out of
W.P.No.200460/2024 and W.A.No.200308/2024 arises out of
W.P.No.200466/2024.
3. In both the writ petitions, the learned Single Judge
has held that respondent No.1/petitioner is entitled to the
benefit of deemed conversion in respect of land bearing
Sy.No.61/*/10 (61/AA) measuring 02 acres 10 guntas situated
at Haladkeri (K) village, taluka and district Bidar ('petition
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3443-DB
HC-KAR
land', for short), thereby setting aside the order of the Deputy
Commissioner, Bidar.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
Appellant Board, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No.1 and the learned Government Advocate
appearing for the respondent Nos.2 to 5.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that
the State Government had preferred W.A.Nos.200193/2024
and 200194/2024 challenging the orders passed in
W.P.Nos.200466/2024 and 200460/2024, respectively before
this Court. It is submitted that the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court, by its order dated 11.11.2024, dismissed the said writ
appeals. Against the dismissal of the W.A. No.200193/2024,
the Appellant Board preferred SLP (Civil) Diary
No(s).9532/2025 before the Apex Court. The Apex Court, after
hearing the Appellant Board, was pleased to dismiss the SLP,
having found no reason to interfere with the order passed by
the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.A.No.200193/2024.
Accordingly, it is contended by the learned counsel for the
respondent No.1 that the relief sought in the present appeals
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3443-DB
HC-KAR
do not survive for consideration, in view of the dismissal of the
earlier appeal and SLP, and it is therefore submitted that the
present writ appeals are liable to be dismissed.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
Appellant Board submits that the order challenged before the
Apex Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No(s).9532/2025 pertains to the
order dated 11.11.2024 passed in W.A.No.200193/2024, which
was filed by the State Government. It is further submitted that
in the order of the Co-ordinate Bench in W.A. No.200193/2024,
it has been clearly observed that as regards the claim of
respondent No.2 i.e., Appellant Board herein, it shall be open to
the appellant to redress its grievance in accordance with law.
As such, the Appellant Board is entitled to address arguments
on merits in the present appeals.
7. It is contended by the Appellant Board that the
Land Tribunal had earlier passed an order in LRM/134/74-75 in
respect of Sy.No.61 along with other survey numbers situated
at Haladkeri(K) village, Tq. & Dist. Bidar by its order dated
05.06.1975. The Appellant Board after coming to know about
the said order challenged the same by filing writ petition before
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3443-DB
HC-KAR
this Court in W.P. No.2376/1976. This Court, upon hearing the
parties and finding that the Appellant Board was not the party
before the Land Tribunal, remanded back the matter to the
Tribunal for fresh consideration after affording an opportunity
to the Appellant Board.
8. It is the contention of the Appellant Board that on
remand, the Land Tribunal again passed an order on
29.02.1988 granting occupancy rights to the applicants in
respect of few survey numbers including the petition land
without hearing the Appellant Board. Thus, it is contended by
the Appellant Board that the petition land is a wakf property
managed by the Board and the grant of occupancy rights
before the Tribunal in the proceedings was without hearing the
Appellant Board and thus contends that the order passed in writ
petitions is without verifying the ownership of the Appellant
Board.
9. To the said contention raised by the Appellant
Board about the ownership, learned counsel for the respondent
No.1 contends that the occupancy rights were granted by the
Land Tribunal way back in the year 1988 and the said order has
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3443-DB
HC-KAR
attained finality. It is contended that on remand of the said
proceedings in W.P.No.2376/1976, before the Land Tribunal,
the Inspector of the Appellant Board was examined as witness
and the Land Tribunal after considering the material on record
has granted occupancy rights to the applicants vide order dated
29.02.1988. Thus, he would contend that neither the Tribunal
nor any Competent Authority has declared the petition land to
be a wakf property, and on this count as well, the Appellant
Board is not entitled for any relief.
10. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties, the points that arise for consideration are:
i. Whether the present appeals filed by the
Appellant Board would survive for
consideration on merits in light of the
dismissal of SLP (Civil) Diary
No(s).9532/2025, challenged by the Appellant
Board against the dismissal of
W.A.No.200193/2024 arising out of
W.P.No.200466/2024?
ii. Whether the Appellant Board is entitled for
any relief in the present appeal in light of the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3443-DB
HC-KAR
order of the Land Tribunal in File LRM/134/74-
75 dated 29.02.1988?
11. We have given our anxious consideration to the
contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material placed on record.
12. Both the points are taken up together in order to
avoid repetition of discussion and reasoning.
13. The Appellant Board contends that the petition land
is a wakf property and before the Tribunal proceedings in File
No.LRM/134/74-75 where occupancy rights were granted to the
applicants on 29.02.1988, the Appellant Board was not made
as a party. The Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights by its
final order dated 29.02.1988 in respect of the petition land and
other lands to the applicants. The Appellant Board did not seek
to challenge the Tribunal's order which has attained finality.
After the Tribunal's proceedings concluded and the applicants
were recognized as owners, the respondent No.1 appears to
have purchased the property and thereby made an application
to the Deputy Commissioner, Bidar for conversion of
agricultural land into residential purpose. The said application
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3443-DB
HC-KAR
was rejected and it is this rejection order which was called in
question by respondent No.1 in the writ petitions seeking
deemed conversion for residential purpose, the said writ
petitions came to be allowed by the learned Single Judge.
14. The State challenged the order in the writ petitions
by filing W.A.Nos.200193/2024 and 200194/2024, which came
to be dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on
11.11.2024. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
W.A.No.200193/2024 observed that "it will not be open for
respondent No.2 herein to contend that the property in
question is a wakf property, unless the same is declared by the
Competent Authority and the name of the Wakf Board or any
other institution is reflected in the record of rights'. The
Appellant Board was respondent No.2 in those appeals and filed
SLP (Civil) Diary No(s).9532/2025, which came to be dismissed
by the Apex Court thereby upholding the finding of the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court, affirming the respondent
No.1/petitioner's ownership and conversion rights.
15. The present appeals are collateral attempts to re-
open an issue already adjudicated and we find no merits in
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3443-DB
HC-KAR
these appeals and same deserve to be dismissed, answering
the points for consideration accordingly, we pass the following:
ORDDER
The writ appeals are hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(K S HEMALEKHA)
JUDGE
BL
CT:NI
