Point of Law:Wakf properties – Jurisidction of wakf tribunal - merely because the present petitioner as defendant No.1 appears to have participated in the proceedings and contested the suit before the Tribunal, by that itself, it cannot be held that the Tribunal acquires the power or jurisdiction

ORDER :

The present petitioner was defendant No.1 and the present respondent No.2 was defendant No.2 in O.S. No.12/2010 before the Karnataka Wakf Tribunal, Gulbarga Division, Gulbarga (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) which suit was filed by present respondent No.1 as a plaintiff for the relief of declaration that the corrigendum dated 03.11.2008 was not binding on the plaintiff and the gift deed dated 24.12.1969 also was not binding on the plaintiff and for perpetual injunction, alternatively for recovery of possession and for costs.

2. The summary of the case of the plaintiff before the Tribunal was that plaintiff – Masjid is a Waqf recognized by the 2nd defendant i.e. Karnataka State Board of Wakfs, Bangalore. Plot Nos.2664 to 2668 were the Waqf properties attached to plaintiff – Masjid. The same was notified in the Gazette Notification dated 31.01.1974 at serial No.68. Since the year 1974, plaintiff is in possession and managing the said Masjid which is situated in plot No.2666 and surrounding area comprising other plots. All the plots bearing Nos.2664 to 2668 were granted to the plaintiff by Nizam of Hyderabad as far back as 1350 – 1355 fasli corresponding to the year 1940 A.D. The same were duly recorded in the shetwar and revenue records. That being the case, one Sri Syed Sirajul Hasan Quadri having no authority in the plaintiff – institution created a bogus registered gift deed dated 24.12.1969 showing that he has gifted plot Nos.2664 and 2665 to one Sri Mohd. Zafar Hussain President of defendant No.1 – Masjid. The defendant No.1 moved the D.W.A.C. Koppal for registration of those two plots i.e. plot Nos. 2664 and 2665 which are the suit schedule properties as additional properties of defendant No.1 – institution by enclosing alleged khata extraction and mutation copy. The plaintiff contended that defendant No.2 since had already admitted that the said plots and other properties as Waqf properties of the plaintiff it was not competent to meddle with the property and management of the plaintiff by issuing any certificate of registration. It had no right or authority to issue further corrigendum in respect of the suit plots. That being the case, the plaintiff filed its objection before the defendant No.2 which defendant on 22.03.2007 appointed one Syed Habeebulla, K.A.S., Head Quarter Assistant of Koppal as enquiry officer regarding the subject-matter of the suit. The said enquiry officer after a detailed enquiry and making local inspection in the presence of both parties, submitted his report to defendant No.2. Even the D.W.A.C. Koppal also sent its finding holding that transfer of plot Nos.2664 and 2665 to defendant No.1 was uncalled for and the corrigendum and notification etc. were liable to be cancelled. However, the defendant No.2 issued a corrigendum dated 03.11.2008 showing that plot Nos.2664 and 2665 were the additional properties of defendant No.1.

3. The plaintiff further contended that the alleged donor Sri Syed Sirajul Hasan Quadri himself was stranger to the suit property and he had never been the owner or possessor of suit plots. As such, he cannot gift those plots which do not belong to him. On the other hand, the suit plots belong to the plaintiff since centuries and has been shown as the properties of the plaintiff – masjid even in Gazette Notification also. The issuance of corrigendum after a long span of nearly 35 years showing the said plots as that of defendant No.1 was bad in the eye of law. The plaintiff contended that despite the same, the defendant No.1 has been forcibly collecting the rents from the lessees/tenants in the suit schedule property. With this the plaintiff has prayed for a declaration that the corrigendum dated 03.11.2008 is not binding on the plaintiff and gift deed dated 24.12.1969 also is not binding on the plaintiff and for perpetual injunction; in the alternative for perpetual injunction, for recovery of possession of the suit properties.

4. The defendant No.1 f