Eviction proceedings under the Public Premises Act cannot proceed when there are bona fide ownership disputes; such matters must be resolved by the Wakf Tribunal as per the Wakf Act's provisions.

JUDGMENT :

S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV, J.

The present writ appeal has been filed by the Karnataka State Wakf Board calling in question the correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.6306/2008. By virtue of the order passed in W.P.No.6306/2008, the petition filed by Avinash and Others questioning the notice dated 25.10.2007 issued by the competent officer under the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized occupants) Act, 1974 (for short, ‘the Act’) came to be allowed setting aside such show-cause notice. Learned Single Judge had come to a finding that the power to adjudicate under the Act being limited, all substantive contentions which require adjudication touching upon the title are the matters that could be decided only by the Wakf’s Tribunal under Section 83 of the Act. Learned Single Judge while allowing the petition, had observed in the operative portion of the order as follows:

i. The petition is allowed. A certiorari is issued. The notice dated 25.10.2017 issued by the respondent No.2 in PP/179/BGM/2007 at Annexure-H is hereby quashed.

ii. In the event of the wakf wanting to initiate proceedings against the petitioner, the Wakf is at liberty to approach Wakf Tribunal, questioning the right of the petitioners as also establish its rights. The Tribunal is directed to hear all the parties and pass necessary orders within a period of 18 months of any proceedings filed by the wakf before it.

iii. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion as regards any merits of the matter or the title of the parties. The tribunal would be required to decide the question of ownership and rights of the parties strictly in accordance with law on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties uninfluenced by any observation made in this order.

2. The said order is called in question by the Wakf Board.

3. Parties are referred to by their ranks in the writ proceedings for the sake of convenience.

4. The learned counsel for the Wakf Board has assailed the order of the learned Single Judge and submitted that the persons in occupation were claiming rights under a suit in O.S.No.269/1947 and that suit was decided in the absence of the Wakf Board and therefore, is not binding on the Wakf Board.

5. It is further submitted that certain observations as regards its legal effect were also made in a Civil Revision Petition and accordingly, the learned Single Judge ought to have noticed that the rights claimed by the occupants were one that could have been decided under the provisions of the Act.

6. Perused the order of the learned Single Judge. The relevant observations of the order from paragraph Nos.13 to 22 are of relevance and are extracted as below:

“13. Essentially the dispute is as regards the ownership of the property, inasmuch as the petitioner claiming that the property was owned by an individual, who had leased it out to the forefathers of the petitioners, whereas, the Wakf claiming that the said property is a Wakf property, which could not have been leased in the manner done, without obtaining necessary permission from the Charity Commissioner. Sri. Nadaf, had relied upon the decision in the Civil Suit No.269/1947, according to him, the lease was executed in favour of the forefathers of the petitioners in the year 1949. Thus, as far as back in the year 1949 there is a finding of a Court that the property did not belong to the wakf.

14. Whether the property belongs to the Wakf or not? Whether the Wakf can seek for vacation of the petitioner or not?, would have to be determined.

15. The Apex Court in the case of Kaikhosrou (Chick) Kavasji Framji Vs. Union of India and another, reported in (2019) 20 SCC 705 at paragraph Nos.47, 48, 49