[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
City Municipal Council vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3634
WP No. 109736 of 2016
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO.109736 OF 2016 (GM-WAKF)
BETWEEN:
CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
RANEBENNUR, REP. BY
ITS COMMISSIONER, DIST: HAVERI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. DINESH M.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF WAQF,
M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BANGALORE.
2. THE KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF WAQFS,
VIJAYALAKSHMI
M KANKUPPI NO.6, KANNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE-52,
BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
Digitally signed by
VIJAYALAKSHMI
M KANKUPPI 3. THE MANAGING COMMITTEE,
Date: 2026.03.12
11:08:52 +0530
THE ANZUMAN-E-ISLAM RANEBENNUR,
DIST: HAVERI, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT.
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. KIRTILATA R.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 AND R4;
SRI. B. MUHAMED ALI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. SADIQ N.GOODWALA, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3634
WP No. 109736 of 2016
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) TO ISSUE
A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH ORDER
PASSED BY THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AND WAKF TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI IN CASE
NO.KWT/HVR/SR/PETITION NO.4/2012, DATED 05.07.2014 VIDE
ANNEXURE-H, AS NULL AND VOID, AND; B) TO SET ASIDE THE
GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 09.01.2003 IN SO FAR AS THE
PROPERTIES BEARING NO.2109 (PART OF R.S.NO.806),
CTS.NO.1858/F, CTS NO.4/A-1A1, CTS NO.1981/A, CTS
NO.2048/13, CTS NO.2078/14A, CTS NO.2078/14B, CTS
NO.3218/A-2A, R.S.NO.312 & CTS.NO.1060/A VIDE ANNEXURE-
B, AS NULL AND VOID IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY AND ETC.,.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN
AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)
1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging
the judgment dated 05.07.2014 passed by the learned V
Additional District and Sessions Judge and Karnataka Wakf
Tribunal, Belagavi in KWT/HVR/SR/Petition No.4/2012
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Wakf Tribunal').
2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this writ
petition are as follows:
3. The petitioner is the custodian of the immovable
properties vested in the Municipal Council as per Section 81 of
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3634
HC-KAR
the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964. It is averred that recently
a dispute arose between the petitioner and respondent No.3 with
regard to CTS No.1981/A when the petitioner attempted to put
up a compound wall. At that time, it was noticed that respondent
No.2 had published a notification dated 26.06.1975 and included
the said property in the list of properties belonging to the Wakf
in Ranebennur Taluk, which was subsequently published in the
State Gazette dated 09.01.2003 declaring the said properties as
Wakf properties.
4. It is contended that property bearing No.806 stands
in the name of the petitioner and the records do not indicate that
any portion of the said property is a Wakf property. It is further
stated that property bearing CTS No.1858 was handed over to
the petitioner by the State in 1927. Insofar as property bearing
CTS No.1981/A1 is concerned, reference is made to the order of
the Deputy Commissioner dated 20.12.1941, wherein the land
was reserved for a graveyard of the Muslim community.
However, the said allotment was cancelled in 1942 and
thereafter no further entries were made in the records up to
1986.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3634
HC-KAR
5. It is stated that the properties bearing CTS
Nos.2048/13, 2078/14A and 2078/14B are held by private
individuals on a lease basis and the said leaseholders have
subsequently transferred their rights in favour of respondent
No.3.
6. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the Gazette
notification insofar as it relates to the aforesaid properties, filed a
writ petition in W.P. No.65859/2010. The said writ petition was
disposed of with an observation that an alternative remedy was
available, and a liberty was granted to the petitioner to avail the
said remedy before the Wakf Tribunal.
7. Being aggrieved by the order passed in the said writ
petition, the petitioner preferred a writ appeal in W.A.
No.6450/2010. The said writ appeal came to be dismissed
reserving a liberty to agitate rights before appropriate forum
under the Wakf Act.
8. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a review petition and
the said review petition came to be rejected.
9. Subsequently, the petitioner approached the Wakf
Tribunal by filing a suit.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3634
HC-KAR
10. The respondents, while reiterating the averments
made in the writ petition, filed their statement of objections. The
respondents, in its objections, contended that the properties in
question are Wakf properties and that the petitioner has no right,
title, or interest over the said properties. It was further
contended that the claim made by the petitioner is barred by
limitation. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the suit.
11. The Tribunal, without recording the evidence, framed
the following points for consideration:
1) Whether the applicant has made out sufficient ground to
declare that the suit properties are not the Wakf
properties published in the Gazette notification dated
09.01.2003?
2) What order?
12. The Tribunal, after hearing the learned counsel for
the parties, answered Point No.1 in the negative and,
consequently, dismissed the application filed under Section 7(1)
read with Rule 68(2) of the Karnataka Wakf Act as not
maintainable, vide Judgment dated 05.07.2014.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3634
HC-KAR
13. The petitioner, aggrieved by the order passed by the
Wakf Tribunal, has filed this writ petition.
14. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the
petitioner, and learned counsel for the respondents.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner filed a suit before the Wakf Tribunal. However, the
Wakf Tribunal got confused regarding the nature of the petition
and erroneously treated it as a revision petition instead of
considering the dispute before the proper forum. It is contended
that the judgment passed by the Wakf Tribunal is arbitrary and
erroneous, and that the Tribunal did not properly examine the
records produced by the petitioner. Hence, on these grounds, he
prays for allow the writ petition.
16. Per contra, learned counsel for the Wakf Tribunal
supports the impugned order and contends that the petitioner
filed an application and not a suit. It is submitted that the
Tribunal was justified in holding that the application filed by the
petitioner was not maintainable and, therefore, rightly passed
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3634
HC-KAR
the impugned judgment. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to
dismiss the writ petition.
17. Perused the records, and considered the submissions
of the learned counsel for the parties.
18. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner, prior to
filing the present writ petition, approached this Court in Writ
Petition No.65859/2010. The said writ petition was disposed of
vide order dated 28.09.2010, wherein the petitioner challenged
the Gazette notification dated 09.01.2003 containing the list of
Wakf properties, including the properties which are the subject
matter of the present petition. In the said order, this Court
observed that whether the properties were wrongly included as
Wakf, or whether the petitioner could claim to be an interested
person, owner, or in actual possession and enjoyment of the
properties as of the date of filing the writ petition, were matters
that could not be gone into in the writ petition.
19. The disputed questions can be agitated only before
the proper forum, and liberty was reserved to the petitioner to
avail such remedy. Aggrieved by the order passed in the
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3634
HC-KAR
aforementioned writ petition, the petitioner filed Writ Appeal
No.6450/2010. The Hon'ble Division Bench dismissed the writ
appeal vide order dated 24.05.2011. Subsequently, the
petitioner filed a review petition in RP No.1555/2011, which was
dismissed by order dated 14.12.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner
approached the Wakf Tribunal by filing a suit. A copy of the
plaint is produced and marked as Annexure-F. On perusal of the
cause title, it is clear that the petitioner had filed a suit and not
an application. The Tribunal, however, recorded the finding in
paragraph No.18, which reads as follows:
"18. Therefore when the applicant seeking declaratory
relief, which is comprehensive in nature, which requires full
pledged trial, since the respondent in the instant case
disputing said aspect and submitted that those properties are
not the Wakf properties. Hence, the matter shall have to be
investigated and the parties will have to prove their case by
placing cogent and acceptable evidence before the court in
the form of oral and documentary to substantiate as to their
contentions in the application and the objections filed to the
application. Therefore, looking to the averments of the
petition as well as objections to the petition there is assertion
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3634
HC-KAR
and denial of the facts and therefore, the parties will have to
adduce evidence on their behalf. At the same time even
though the applicant was being directed to work out the
remedy under the Wakf Act, but the applicant has not
approached this court by way of filing the suit, since applicant
has sought for declaration. In that context the applicant had
relied on the documents at Sl.No.1 to 14, which are said to
be the property extracts, order in writ petition, order in writ
appeal and order in revision petition. Therefore, after careful
perusal of the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka in the above said writ petition, appeal and revision
petition it is crystal clear that whether the properties are
wrongly included in the Wakf and whether the petitioner can
claim to be interested person or owner of the properties or its
actual possession and enjoyment of the same as on today, or
maters which cannot be come into the revision petition. That
disputed questions can be agitated only before the proper
forum. Therefore, the petitioner was given liberty to avail
such remedy."
20. From the perusal of paragraph No.18 of the
impugned judgment which clearly discloses that, though the
petitioner has filed a suit, but wherein the Tribunal has recorded
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3634
HC-KAR
its finding that the plaintiff has not filed a suit for declaration but
had filed applications and that the disputed question can be
agitated only before the proper forum. However, without looking
into the contents of the plaint produced as Annexure-F, the
Tribunal wrongly come to a conclusion that the petitioner had
filed an application under Section 7(1) read with Rule 68(2) of
Karnataka Wakf Act.
21. From a perusal of the prayer sought by the petitioner
in Annexure-F, which is a copy of the plaint, it discloses that the
petitioner has sought a declaration that the properties referred to
in the gazette notification dated 09.01.2003, as mentioned in the
prayer column, are not Wakf properties.
22. The said relief sought by the petitioner falls under
Section 7 of the Karnataka Wakf Act, 1995. As regards Rule
68(2) is concerned that does not attract the present suit, as
Section 68(2) pertains to removal of a Mutawalli.
23. The Tribunal, without considering this aspect, has
dismissed the suit on the ground that it is an application filed
under Section 7(1) read with Rule 68(2) of the Karnataka Wakf
Act. The reasons assigned by the Wakf Tribunal in the impugned
judgment are arbitrary and erroneous.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3634
HC-KAR
24. Hence for the reasons stated above, the impugned
judgment is liable to be set-aside.
25. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass
the following order.
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) The Impugned order passed by the Wakf
Tribunal, Belagavi in KWT/HVR/SR/Petition
No.4/2012, dated 05.07.2014 vide
Annexure-H is hereby set aside.
(iii) The suit filed by the petitioner is restored to
its original file.
(iv) The Wakf Tribunal is directed to dispose of the
suit filed by the petitioner in accordance
with law.
(v) All the contentions of the parties are
kept open.
(vi) Pending applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE
RHR/-CT: UMD
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1
