In cases of ownership disputes, statutory authorities cannot use summary remedies to evict occupants without following due process of law. The party claiming ownership must establish its rights through the appropriate tribunal before initiating summary proceedings under relevant acts.

ORDER :

1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs :

(a) Issue a writ of Certiorari to quash notice dated 25.10.2007, in case No.PP/179/BGM/2007 (Annexure-H) issued by the 2nd respondent.

(b) Issue any writ or order or direction Court deems fit.

2. The petitioners claim that Survey No.915, totally measuring 3 acres 30 guntas situated at Belagavi city was owned by Sri. Nanu Pachha Syed Kashim Sahib who had leased the property for a period of ten years in favour of Sadanand and brothers on 01.10.1949. Since from that date, the petitioners are in possession of the property. After the expiry of the said lease, a permanent lease had been executed on 24.03.1960 in favour of Sri. Shankar Yeshawanth Desai, as regards the said property. The said permanent lessee has put up construction on the property by investing huge amounts of money and establishing a sawmill.

3. After the demise of the permanent lessee, he was succeeded to the estate by his sons, but one of the sons expired and it is the surviving son and the legal representatives of the deceased son who are the petitioners herein.

4. It is contended that, there was an earlier suit filed in the year 1947 regarding the property by one Mr. Abdul Rahiman Allisaheb Mujawar contending that the property in R.S.No.915 is a Wakf property, the said suit came to be dismissed. Thereafter, the appeal came to be filed which was also dismissed. In that background, it is contended that, the property is not a Wakf property despite which on 10.04.2007, the 3rd respondent issued a legal notice stating that the permanent lease executed by the Mutavalli of the Dargha in favour of the Shankar Yashwant Desai is illegal and vide under Section 56 of the Wakf Act, 1955 and therefore, called upon them to vacate the premises and handover the possession and as also to make payment of the damages. A reply was also given to the legal notice.

5. Thereafter, a notice dated 25.10.2007 came to be issued under Section 4(1) of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized occupants) Act, 1974 on the ground that, the property had been illegally leased out without the permission of the Assistant Charity Commissioner. The petitioners appeared in the said matter. However, it is contended that respondent No.2 has acted in an arbitrary manner. Hence, being aggrieved by the notice issued by the 2nd respondent contending that the same is issued without jurisdiction. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

6. Sri. T.M.Nadaf, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, the notice dated 25.10.2007 is without jurisdiction, without authority, perverse and arbitrary. In the suit filed in the year 1947 it has been held that the property is not a Wakf property and therefore, the Wakf could not claim any right in the property. He further submits that, as regards notices which have been issued to certain other tenants, the said tenants had challenged the order of the eviction by filing the necessary appeal under Section 10(1) of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized occupants) Act, 1974.

7. In the said proceedings he submits, the issue as regards whether the land was owned by the Wakf and/or the trust was considered and the said District Court came to the conclusion that the respondent No.2 had not applied his mind and in a summary manner, merely because the property was registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 arrived at a presumption that the property is a Wakf property and directed the appellants therein to vacate the property. The District Court held that it is required for the Wakf Board to obtain the declaration or a finding from the competent tribunal in that regard to say that the properties are Wakf property and only then initiate the proceedings under the Bombay Public Trust Act.

8. He therefore, submits that the said order would be equally applicable to the present case and unless the Wakf were to obtain an order from