Merely Inserting Wakf Board's Name In Revenue Records Of Land Will Not Lead To Conclusion That It Is Wakf Property: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has said that on the mere deletion of the name of a private owner in revenue records by the Tahsildar and inserting the name of the Wakf board, without carrying out an inquiry for determination of title, the property cannot be said to be a wakf property.A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj held thus while allowing a petition filed by one Chennamma and...
The Karnataka High Court has said that on the mere deletion of the name of a private owner in revenue records by the Tahsildar and inserting the name of the Wakf board, without carrying out an inquiry for determination of title, the property cannot be said to be a wakf property.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj held thus while allowing a petition filed by one Chennamma and set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 14-02-2022 and directed the Tashildar to delete the entry of Board in the record of rights in respect of the land of the petitioner and reinstate the name of the petitioner in the said revenue records within sixty days.
The petitioner claimed that in 2012 he had purchased the said land under a sale deed dated 05.10.2012 the name of the petitioner also came to be entered into the revenue records.
Later the Regional Commissioner issued a notification directing the Deputy Commissioner to make necessary enquiries with regard to Wakf properties and make entries in the revenue records. The Deputy Commissioner issued directions to the Tahasildars on 23.12.2017, based on the notification of the Regional Commissioner, following which the Tahasildar mutated the name of the respondent No.5 - District Officer, Wakf Board in the revenue records in the year 2018-2019.
Subsequently, the petitioner approached the court seeking a direction to the authorities to consider his representation which was allowed. Considering the same the Assistant Commissioner dismissed the representation and passed the impugned order, holding that if the petitioner is aggrieved, the petitioner would have to approach the Wakf Tribunal under Section 83 of the Wakf Act.
Findings:
The bench on going through the notification issued by the Regional Commissioner noted that both the Deputy Commissioner and respondent No.4- Tahsildar completely misconstrued the notification issued by the Regional Commissioner.
It said “The Regional Commissioner had specifically stated that due enquiry has to be made and thereafter, entry of the name of the Wakf Board to be made, if the property was the Wakf property, that is to say, there was a determination required to be made on available documents as to whether the property is Wakf property or not. Without carrying out any such enquiry, the Deputy Commissioner in furtherance of the Notification directed his subordinate officers, including respondent No.4- Tahsildar to carry out the instructions of the Regional Commissioner.”
It added that the Tahsildar had considered the direction of the Deputy Commissioner to be a direction to insert the name of the Wakf Board by deleting the name of private owners, which is not what is contemplated in the Notification and the direction issued by the Deputy Commissioner.
Following this it held that when the Tahsildar had deleted the name of the petitioner and inserted the name of the Wakf Board, the property cannot be said to be Wakf property merely by such insertion.
The court rejected the contention to direct the petitioner to approach the Wakf Tribunal to raise his claim and said “The enquiry being required to be made as aforesaid, the same not having been made, it cannot now be contended by the Wakf Board that there is a dispute of the title as regards the property belonging to the Wakf Board, requiring the petitioner to approach the Wakf Tribunal under Section 83 of the Act, that would have been the case, if the name of the Wakf Board was always found on the records and a new claim was made by a third party.”
Allowing the petition the court said that it was for the Wakf Board to establish its title over the property as against a private party which would not come within the purview of Section 83 of the Act. Thus, the finding of the Assistant Commissioner in this regard was completely unsustainable.
The court thus reserved liberty to the Tashildar to hold a proper enquiry in terms of the notification issued by the regional commissioner by issuing a show cause notice, affording an opportunity for the petitioner to file objections and be heard before passing necessary orders.
Appearance: Advocate Ravi B Patil for Petitioner.
HCGO Maya T R for R1 TO R4.
Advocate P S Malipatil for R5.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 374
Case Title: Chennamma AND The Regional Commissioner & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 202162 OF 2022