The main legal point established in the judgment is that disputes related to waqf properties, including possession of leased shops, fall under the jurisdiction of the Waqf Tribunal as per the provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. The petitioner in this writ petition seeks a declaration that the act of the 3rd respondent/Karnataka State Board of Auqaf ('the Board' for short) in sealing the premises, where the petitioner was a lessee, to be contrary to Sec. 54 of the Waqf Act, 1995 ('the Act' for short).

2. Sans details, facts in brief are as follows:-

The 4th respondent is the Central Majlis-E-Shoora Jamaia Masjid ('the Auqaf' for short) in Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur District. The 4th respondent, in order to lease out shops in the Auqaf properties, issues an advertisement of auction of the properties. The auction was sought to be conducted in six mosques existing in the surrounding area. The petitioner finding himself eligible to be allotted a shop, participated in the auction, becomes successful and was allotted a shop bearing No.A/46 measuring 250 sq.ft. in the said shop properties. Pursuant to the petitioner getting allotted the aforesaid shop, the 4th respondent enters into a lease with the petitioner on 1/1/2022. The rent amount between the two was also determined at Rs.24.00 per sq.ft., which would amount to Rs.10, 500.00 per month, with refundable security deposit of a month's rent was also paid to the 4th respondent. Pursuant to the lease, the petitioner began utilizing the shop and running a provision store in the said shop.

3. On 22/6/2022, the 4th respondent issues a demand notice to the petitioner to pay arrears of rent. It is claimed that the petitioner had no dues to be paid and the demand notice itself was contrary to law. On the allegation that the rents had fallen in arrears of the leased property, the 4th respondent unauthorisedly sealed the premises and dispossessed the petitioner, which forced the petitioner to knock at the doors of this Court in the subject petition, is the averment in the petition.

WRIT PETITION NO.15706 of 2022

4. The petitioners in this petition seek similar declaration as is sought in Writ Petition No.15391 of 2022. The facts in this case are similar to the averments made in the said companion petition. The only difference being sole petitioner and sole lessee in the companion petition and in this petition, there are 18 petitioners. The rest of the facts remain the same i.e., execution of lease and the petitioners running their respective business in the shops that were leased to them.

5. Heard Sri A.Mahesh Chowdhary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the writ petitions; Smt. Shwetha Krishnappa, learned Additional Government advocate for respondent No.1 in both the petitions; Sri M.H.Haneef, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and respondent No.3 is served and unrepresented in W.P.No.15391 of 2022; Smt. Azra J.Dundge, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, Smt. Swathi Ashok, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 in W.P.No.15706 of 2022; Sri Vikram Huilgol, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.4 in both writ petitions and Sri Jayakumar S.Patil, learned senior counsel appearing for impleading applicants in I.A.No.1/2022 in W.P.No.15706 of 2022.

6. In this petition, an impleading application - I.A.No.1/2022 is filed by six applicants, who claim to be in possession of certain leased premises from the hands of the 4th respondent. The need for permitting the impleading applicants did not arise, as the matter itself was heard for its disposal.

7. The learned senior counsel appearing for the impleading applicants was permitted to make submissions rendering assistance to the Court.

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned senior counsel and other respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

9. A little history to the claim of impleading applicants is required to be noticed. The impleading applicants were leased out certain shops in the precincts of the 4th respondent/Auqaf. The competent authority demolished certain shops for the purpose of road-widening and after re-construction of shops, when the