Anand Byrareddy, J.

The Counsel for the petitioners and the respondents were heard.

2. The petition concerns land in Survey No.528/1 of Balaganoor Village Sindanur Taluk, Raichur District, measuring about 5.31 acres. It is claimed that the sum, along with other properties, was dedicated to petitioner No.2 and has been duly notified as wakf property in terms Of the Wakf Act, 1954, under a Gazette Notification, dated 17-1-1974, of the State Government of Karnataka.

3. The second respondent claiming as the wife of one Nagalingappa is said to have filed an application under Section 5 of the Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977, before the Land Tribunal, Sindanur, and claimed that in terms of an agreement dated 9-3-1963, executed by one Abdul Khadersab, the erstwhile Mutawalli of the second petitioner, in favour of her husband, she ought to be conferred occupancy rights. The claim was contested by the first petitioner and it was primarily contended that the land could not have been leased out by the Mutawalli, in violation of the! Wakf Act, 1954, which prohibited the lease of Wakf property, for any term exceeding three years, without prior permission or sanction of the Karnataka State Wakf Board and that the transaction, in any event, would not bind the petitioners. The Tribunal having granted occupancy rights as I claimed, notwithstanding the above objection as well as other contentions urged, the present petition is filed challenging the above order.

4. The Counsel for the petitioner contends that in terms of Section 5 of the KCIA Act, where the inamdar is a religious institution, it is only the person who is rendering religious services and who also satisfies other conditions prescribed therein, who could be registered as an occupant-in the instant case the applicant did not qualify and therefore the very application was not maintainable.

5. It is contended that it is settled law that a mutawalli had not right to register himself as an occupant of the land. Hence, it follows that any person claiming under him cannot also be registered as an occupant. It is further contended that the impugned order is bad in law for the reason that the Tribunal has overlooked the fact that the property is wakf property and a wakf once created is in perpetuity and is not capable of being nullified. The Tribunal has, in having conferred occupancy rights in favour of respondent No.2, in effect, nullified the wakf which was wholly impermissible. The Counsel for the petitioner would therefore urge that the following questions would arise for consideration in the present petition.

“1. Whether the provisions of the Karnataka Certain Inams Abolitions Act, 1977 can be made applicable to the properties which have been declared as “wakf properties”?

2. Whether the provisions of the Karnataka Certain Inams Abolitions Act, 1977 is inconsistent with the personal law of Mohammedans relating to wakfs?

3. Whether provisions of the Karnataka Certain Inams Abolitions Act, 1977 are in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed to religious denominations under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India?

Elaborating further, it is contended by the Counsel for the petitioner that, “Wakf’ means a permanent dedication by a person professing Islam, of any moveable or immovable property for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable. The consequence flowing from creation of Wakf is :

“a) That the property stands vested with the Almighty;

b) That the wakif/dedicator has relinquished all his rights to intermeddle with the property;

c) The property which is vested with the Almighty is perpetual and permanent;

d) It is only the usufructs of the corpus which can be utilized for religious or charitable purposes as the case may be;

e) It is further well settled that a curator whether called Muthawali or Sajjadanashin or by any other name, person holding the property would ‘not be owner of the same but would only be the Superintendent