IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

W. P. No. 202867/2018 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SYED ASHRAF RAZA S/O SYED CHANDA HUSSAINI AGE:53 YEARS, OCC:MUTTAWALLI AND SAJJADA NASHEEN OF DARAH HAZARATH SYED SHA SHAMS ALAM HUSSAINI (RH) RAICHUR.

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI AMEET KUMAR DESHPANDE FOR SRI ARUNKUMAR AMARGUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE)

AND :

• 1 . SYED MOHD. SAFI S/O LATE SYED CHANDA HUSSAINI, AGE:67 YEARS, OCC:NIL, R/O H.NO.2-2-66 (IST FLOOR), ANDROON QUILLA, RAICHUR.
• 2 . SYED NAYEEM ASHRAF S/O SYED MOHD. SALEEM, AGE:42 YEARS, OCC:TEACHER.
• 3 . SYED HAMEED ASHRAF S/O SYED MOHD. SALEEM AGE:38 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS, XEROX SHOP IN THE SUIT LAND
• 4 . SYED HABEEB ASHRAF

D/O SYED MOND SALEEM AGE:30 YEARS, OCC: NIL.

• 5 . SYEDA BUSHRA REHANA D/O SYED MOHD. SALEEM AGE:25 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD.
• 6 . SYEDA TAHERABI D/O LATE SYEDE MOHD. SALEEM SAB AGE:22 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD.

PLAINTIFFS NO.2 TO 6 ARE R/O H.NO.2-2-72 ANDROON QUILLA, RAICHUR.

• 7 . THE ADMINISTRATOR, KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF WAKF CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE

• 8 . THE DISTRICT WAKF OFFICER, DISTRICT WAKF OFFICE, RAICHUR.

• 9 . MOHD. SHAKEERE S/O LATE MOHD YOUSUF AGE:35 YEARS, OCC:HOTEL BUSINESS, R/O HOTEL KAREEM SAB, HYDERABAD ROAD, RAICHUR.

• 10 . ADBUL MUJAHEED @ ABDULLA S/O LATE SHAIK BADE SAB, AGE:28 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O BADESAB PANSHOP IN FRONT OF HOTEL KAREEM SAB, HYDERABAD ROAD, RAICHUR

• 11 . MOHD. AYUB S/O MOHD. MAKBUL AGE:28 YRS OCC: BUSINESS, R/O SHAM ENGINEERING WORK HYDERABAD ROAD, RAICHUR

• 12 . FARUK AHMED S/O MASOOD ALI AGE:45 YRS OCC: BUSINESS R/O FEROZ HOTEL HYDERABAD ROAD, RAICHUR

• 13 . SHAIK BADE SAB S/O LATE KHAIRAT HUSSAIN AGE:65 YRS OCC: BUSINESS R/O SHAMS WOODEN WORKS HYDERABAD ROAD, RAICHUR

• 14 . MOHD. YOUNUS S/O LATE MOHD. IKBAL AGE:35 YRS OCC: BUSINESS R/O UNIQUE TOURS & TRAVELS HYDERABAD ROAD, RAICHUR

• 15 . KHAJA MOINDDIN S/O BASHA HUSSAIN AGE: 45 YRS OCC: BUSINESS R/O A ONE FOOTWEAR HYDERABAD ROAD, RAICHUR.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI./SMT : SANJEEVKUMAR C PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1, 2 & 6;

SRI S.S. MAMADAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR C/3, R4 & R5;

SRI P.S. MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R7;

SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R8;

SRI G.B. YADAV, ADVOCATE FOR R9 TO R15)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED PRESIDING OFFICER, KARNATAKA WAKF TRIBUNAL, KALABURAGI IN O.S.NO.19/2017 ON I.A.NO.1 DATED 20.08.2018 (ANNEXURE-E)

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:-

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed by defendant No.3 in O.S. No.19/2017 pending trial before the Karnataka Wakf Tribunal, Kalaburagi (henceforth referred to as 'Tribunal') challenging the order dated 20.08.2018 by which, the Tribunal granted an order of interim injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs.

2. The parties shall be referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal .

3. The plaintiffs No.1 to 6 herein filed a suit for declaration of title in respect of Sy. No.257/1/B of Raichur and for consequential relief of injunction and to declare that the corrigendum Notification dated 17.04.2015 issued by defendants No.1 and 2 was null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs.

4. The plaintiffs contended that Syed Chanda Hussaini was the Inamdar of the land in Sy. No.257 of Raichur and his name appeared in the revenue records.

4

After coming into force of the Inams Abolition Act, Syed Chanda Hussaini applied in Form No.1 for grant of occupancy rights. The Tribunal was pleased to grant occupancy rights in terms of the order dated 20.07.1981 and Form No.11 was issued in his name. The said Syed Chanda Hussaini died on 23.04.1982 and thereafter plaintiff No.2, father of plaintiffs No.2 to 6 and other brothers of plaintiff No.1 succeeded and inherited the land measuring 4 acres 17 guntas. It is stated that defendant No.3 was a party before the Land Tribunal. An application filed by the Wakf Board before the Land Tribunal was rejected. They also contended that their names are entered in the revenue records and hence the Notification of the said land in the list of Wakfs would not hamper their right to the suit property. They also contended that the defendants were attempting to interfere with their possession and thus were entitled to an order of injunction. Along with the suit, an application was filed for interim injunction restraining the defendants from interefering with the possession of the plaintiffs in the suit property.

5. The suit was contested by defendant No.3, who is the Muthawalli of the Wakf, who contended that the suit was not maintainable in view of the express bar contained in Section 6(1) of the Wakf Act. It was also contended that once a property is dedicated to the Wakf, it cannot be divested in any manner whatsoever. The defendant No.3 contended that the land bearing Sy. No.257 and 325 of Raichur was already notified as Wakf property pursuant to a preliminary survey and the same was gazetted on 04.05.1974. He, therefore, contended that the suit itself was not maintainable and consequently the application filed for temporary injunction was also not maintainable.

6. The Tribunal after considering the claim of the parties, noticed the earlier proceedings before the Land Tribunal which culminated in an order dated 20.07.1982 granting occupancy rights in favour of the predecessor of the plaintiffs. The Tribunal, therefore, held that the plaintiffs were in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. It also noticed the attempt made by defendant No.1 to file a suit for perpetual injunction against the

6

plaintiffs in O.S. No.3/2014 and 10/2016 in respect of the land bearing Sy. No. 257 on the ground that the said property belonged to it. The plaintiffs herein contested the suit by filing their written statement and the defendants ultimately withdrew it unconditionally.

7. Based on these facts, the Tribunal held that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case regarding their possession in the suit schedule property. It also noticed the conduct of the defendants in filing suits against the plaintiffs and thereafter withdrawing it giving an impression that the defendants were still claiming that the suit property belonged to it, notwithstanding the order of the Land Tribunal. Since the interim injunction granted is only to maintain status quo of the suit property pending disposal of the suit, having regard to the claim of the plaintiffs that the Land Tribunal had granted the suit property to their grandfather, it is prima facie evident that the plaintiffs were in possession and the defendants were attempting to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal was

7

justified in granting the order of interim injunction. This Court does not feel it necessary to interfere with the same. Hence, this Writ Petition is dismissed.

Sd/- JUDGE

hnm