[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Dargah Hazarat Khalifat vs Syeda Ahmedia Banu on 20 January, 2026

                                              -1-
                                                          NC: 2026:KHC-K:348
                                                    MFA No. 207679 of 2025


                   HC-KAR




                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

                                     KALABURAGI BENCH

                          DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

                                           BEFORE
                            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH


                        MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 207679 OF 2025 (RES)


                   BETWEEN:

                   DARGAH HAZARAT KHALIFAT-UR-RAHEMAN
                   REHAMAT-ULLA-ALIA (SUNNI MALKHED
                   REPRESENTED BY ITS SAJJADA NASHIN
                   SYED SHAHA MUSTAFA QUADRI
                   S/O MURTUZA QUADRI @ PEER PASHA QUADRI,
                   AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                   R/O. KHALIFAT-UR-RAHAMAN DARGA MALKHED,
                   TQ. SEDAM, DIST. KALABURAGI-585 317.

                                                                ...APPELLANT
Digitally signed
by LUCYGRACE       (BY SRI SACHIN M. MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF           AND:
KARNATAKA
                   1.   SYEDA AHMEDIA BANU
                        @ AHMEDUNISSA BEGUM
                        W/O LATE SYED SHAHA NEMITULLAH QUADRI (RH),
                        AGE: 51 YEARS,
                        R/O. PLOT NO.68, WARD NO.22,
                        MUNICIPAL COLONY, KAUL BAZAR,
                        BALLARI-585 102.

                   2.   THE KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF AUQUAF,
                        REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
                        NO.6, DARUL-AUQUAF CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
                             -2-
                                        NC: 2026:KHC-K:348
                                   MFA No. 207679 of 2025


HC-KAR




     BENGALURU - 560 052.

3.   KAZAM KHAN S/O JAN MOHAMMED KHAN
     AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
     R/O. MALKHED,
     VICE PRESIDENT OF AL-HAJ MEERA SYED SHAH
     NEMATULLAH QUADRI AL JELI
     (BABA HAZARAT MALKHED)
     MEMORIAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST
     ROZA REHMANIYA MALKHED, TQ. SEDAM,
     DIST. KALABURAGI-585 292.

                                           ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI AMEETKUMAR DESHPANDE, SENIOR COUNSEL
 APPEARED FOR
 SRI ARUNKUMAR AMARGUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
 SRI P.S. MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 83 (9), OF THE
WAKF AMENDMENT ACT, PRAYING TO        SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20-12-2025 PASSED BY THE
KARNATAKA WAKF TRIBUNAL, KALABURAGI DIVISION AT
KALABURAGI IN OS NO.10/2017 AND REMAND THE MATTER TO
THE TRIBUNAL FOR DISPOSAL OF THE SUIT BY CONDUCTING
FULL FLEDGED TRIAL, BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL FILED BY
THE APPELLANT HEREIN.

     THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH


                    ORAL JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff in OS

No.10/2017 on the file of the Karnataka Waqf Tribunal,

NC: 2026:KHC-K:348

HC-KAR

Kalaburagi Division at Kalaburagi, (for short 'the tribunal')

challenging the Order dated 20.12.2025, wherein the

Tribunal, allowed the memo filed by defendant No.1 and

dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff is not entitled to

continue as a Mutawalli after the expiry of the order dated

29.06.2024 passed by the competent Board.

2. Relevant facts for adjudication of this appeal are

that the Dargah Hazarat Khalifat-Ur-Raheman Rahamat-Ulla-

Alia (Sunni), Malkhed, claims to be an institution having

certain properties. The plaintiff-institution is represented by

its Sajjada Nashin and Mutawalli - Syed Shah Mustafa

Quadri S/o. Murtuza Quadri @ Peer Pasha Quadri, resident of

Kalaburagi. The plaintiff has filed suit seeking declaration

with consequential relief of perpetual and mandatory

injunction in respect of the suit properties, against the

defendants. It is averred at paragraph No.4 of the plaint

that, Syed Shah Mustafa Quadri is not only a Mutawalli of the

plaintiff's institution, but also a Sajjada Nashin, claiming

inheritable right in respect of the scheduled property

mentioned in the plaint. During the pendency of the suit, the

NC: 2026:KHC-K:348

HC-KAR

defendant No. 1 has filed memo dated 24.07.2025 stating

that, the Syed Shah Mustafa Quadri, who has been

appointed by the State Board of Wakf, Bangalore as

Mutawalli was for a period of one year and same was

concluded by efflux of time on 28.06.2025 and therefore, the

said Syed Shah Mustafa Quadri cannot be permitted to

continue the proceedings in the suit and has therefore

sought for dismissal of the suit.

3. The said memo filed by defendant No. 1 was

opposed by the plaintiff. The Tribunal, after considering the

material on record by its order dated 20.12.2025, allowed

the memo filed by defendant No. 1 and as such, dismissed

the suit filed by the plaintiff institution on the ground that

the Syed Shah Mustafa Quadri, who has represented the

plaintiff institution, is no more a Mutawalli of the Institution,

as the same was concluded by efflux of time. Feeling

aggrieved by the impugned order dated 20.12.2025, the

plaintiff has preferred this appeal.

NC: 2026:KHC-K:348

HC-KAR

4. Heard Sri. Sachin M. Mahajan, learned counsel

appearing for the appellant, Sri. Ameetkumar Deshpande,

learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.

Arunkumar Amargundappa, for respondent No.1 and Sri.

P.S.Malipatil, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

5. Sri. Sachin M. Mahajan, learned counsel

appearing for the plaintiff argued that the Tribunal has

committed an error in dismissing the entire suit on merits. It

is contended that, though the question before the Tribunal as

to capacity of the said Sajjada Nashin and Mutawalli and

therefore the Tribunal ought not to have dismissed the suit

without considering the factual aspects on record on merits.

It is also argued by Sri. Sachin M. Mahajan, learned counsel,

by referring to the provision contained under Section 3(k) of

the Wakf Act, 1995, (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'),

wherein the definition as to the, "person interested in a

[Wakf]', includes the Sajjada Nashin. Therefore, he

contended that the Tribunal ought to have allowed Syed

Shah Mustafa Quadri to be represented as a Sajjada Nashin

NC: 2026:KHC-K:348

HC-KAR

and Mutawalli for the plaintiff's institution and therefore

sought for interference of this Court.

6. It is also argued by the learned counsel appearing

for the appellant by referring to the provision contained

under Section 83(2) of the Act, wherein it is stated that, any

Mutawalli or person interested in the Wakf can maintain the

suit to protect the interest of the institution, as such, and to

that extent, the Tribunal has erred in arriving at a conclusion

to close the suit itself and therefore sought for interference

of the suit.

7. Sri. Sachin M. Mahajan, learned counsel

appearing for the appellant further argued that, the

Karnataka State Board of Wakf, Banglore, by order dated

30.10.2025 extended the period of one year of Mutawalli of

the appellant-Instutition-Syed Shah Mustafa Quadri and such

other similarly placed institutions, whose term is to expire on

or after 01st August 2025 and therefore, it is contended that

the impugned order passed by the tribunal requires to be

interfered with in this appeal.

NC: 2026:KHC-K:348

HC-KAR

8. Per contra, Sri. Ameetkumar Deshpande, learned

Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 by

referring to the order dated 29.06.2024 passed by the

Karnataka State Board of Wakf, Bangalore and contended

that, the period of Mutawalli-Syed Shah Mustafa Quadri was

for a period of one year and as such, in terms of Rule 54(5)

of the Karnataka Wakf Rules, (hereinafter referred to as

'Rules') the said Syed Shah Mustafa Quadri is no more a

Mutawalli and therefore, sought to justify the impugned

order passed by the tribunal.

9. In respect of the contentions raised by the

learned counsel appearing for the appellant as to the order

dated 30.10.2025 passed by the Chief Executive Officer,

Karnataka State Board of Wakf, it is contended by the

learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.1 that, as the

enquiry is being initiated against the said Syed Shah Mustafa

Quadri and therefore, the extension of the period as per

order dated 30.10.2025 cannot be made applicable to the

said Mutawalli of the plaintiff-appellant Instutition and

further he contended that, the Chief Officer of the Board

NC: 2026:KHC-K:348

HC-KAR

shall take care of the functioning of the plaintiff-appellant

Institution and accordingly sought for dismissal of the

appeal.

10. Sri. P.S.Malipatil, learned counsel appearing for

respondent No.2-Board argued on similar lines of the learned

Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 and it is

further contended by the respondent No.2 that, in view of

Section 3(k) of the Act and Rule 54(5) of the Rules, the said

Syed Shah Mustafa Quadri cannot be directed to continue as

care taker of the plaintiff-appellant Institution as a Mutawalli

and accordingly sought for dismissal of the appeal.

11. In the light of the submission made by the

learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully

examined the averments made in the plaint, wherein, the

Institution is Dargah Hazrat Khalifat-ur-Raheman Rahamat-

ulla-Alia (Suuni) Malkhed-represented by Syed Shah Mustafa

Quadri. At paragraph No.4 of the plaint, genealogy of the

Mutawalli is stated. It is also not in dispute that, respondent

No.2-Board is empowered to appoint Mutawalli to the

NC: 2026:KHC-K:348

HC-KAR

plaintiff-appellant Institution. The suit in O.S.No.10/2017 is

filed before the tribunal seeking relief of declaration that the

suit properties as described in the plaint were Wakf

properties and the plaintiff-Institution is absolute owner of

the said properties. It is to be noted in the prayer No.3 in the

plaint, wherein, the plaintiff has sought for direction against

defendant No.2/respondent No.2 herein to publish the suit

properties as Wakf properties. It is forthcoming from the

written statement filed by the defendant No.1 that, the said

Syed Shah Mustafa Quadri has filed O.S.No.494/2005 before

the III Additional Civil Judge, at Ballari, seeking injunction

and the said suit came to be dismissed. It is not in dispute

that, Syed Shah Mustafa Quadri was appointed as Mutawalli

to the plaintiff Institution for a period of one year as per

order dated 29.06.2024. The tribunal after considering the

material on record, has arrived at a conclusion that

functioning of the Mutawalli-Syed shah Mustafa Quadri came

to an end by 30.06.2024 and as such, passed the impugned

order.

- 10 -

NC: 2026:KHC-K:348

HC-KAR

12. On careful consideration of the order dated

29.06.2024 passed by the Karnataka State Board of Wakf,

Bangalore, wherein, Mutawalli shall function as per the

provisions of the Act and the tenure of the Syed Shah

Mustafa Quadri come to an end by efflux of time. In this

regard, learned counsel appearing for the appellant referred

to an order dated 30.10.2025 passed by the Karnataka State

Board of Wakf, wherein, the term of Managing

Committees/Mutawallies, whose term is coming to expire or

already expired on or after 1st August, 2025 is being

continued till 31.01.2026. In the said order dated

30.10.2025, the period of Mutawallies shall continue subject

to the condition that, in the event, if any enquiry is in

progress and concluded against such Managing Committees

or Mutawallies, and as such, the Board shall assume the

functioning of such Institution as per Rule 54(5) of the Rules.

It is the submission of Sri. P.S.Malipatil, learned counsel

appearing for the defendant No.2/respondent No.2 that, an

enquiry has been initiated against the said Syed Shah

Mustafa Quadri and proceedings are pending consideration

- 11 -

NC: 2026:KHC-K:348

HC-KAR

before the Board and in this regard learned counsel

appearing for the appellant did not counter the submission

as to the pendency of the enquiry against Sri. Syed Shah

Mustafa Quadri. In that view of the matter, I am of the view

that the said Syed Shah Mustafa Quadri is no more a

Mutawalli and cannot be permitted to be continued to

represent the plaintiff-Institution as Mutawalli. In this regard,

on careful examination of the finding recorded by the

tribunal as per paragraph Nos.11 to 14, I am of the view

that, the finding recorded by the tribunal is just and proper

insofar as holding that Sri. Syed Shah Mustafa Quadri shall

not be continued as a Mutawalli of the plaintiff's Institution

by efflux of time.

13. However, the suit is filed by the Institution,

represented by its Sajjada Nashin and Mutawalli. In that

view of the matter, the tribunal has committed an error in

dismissing the entire suit, wherein, the suit filed by the

Institution survives despite there being change of Mutawalli

by the Wakf Board. To that extent, the impugned order

dated 20.12.2025 passed by the tribunal requires to be

- 12 -

NC: 2026:KHC-K:348

HC-KAR

interfered with and therefore, I find force in the submission

made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as

to continuation of the suit filed in the name of the Institution.

However, in view of the appointment of Wakf Officer to

function as Mutawalli as well as to carryout day to day affairs

of the plaintiff's Institution I am of the view that, it is open

for the said Wakf Officer appointed by the Board to continue

the proceedings before the tribunal to protect the interest of

the plaintiff-Institution.

14. In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The appeal is allowed in-part;

(ii) The order dated 20.12.2025 in

O.S.No.10/2017 on the file of the Karnataka Wakf

Tribunal, Kalaburgi Division, Kalaburgi, is set

aside as to dismissing of the suit of the plaintiff-