The court emphasized the need for an enquiry before denying a delay condonation application in Waqf matters, affirming that the Tribunal has the discretion to condone delays under certain circumstances.

ORDER :

V SRISHANANDA, J.

1. Heard Sri. Tajuddin, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri. Anand Kumar for Sri. P.S. Malipatil, counsel for respondent No.3. Sri. Haneef M.H., learned counsel for respondent No.1 absent. Respondent No.2 - Officer of the Waqf, District Waqf Office Shivamogga served and unrepresented.

2. Revision petitioner Sri Janab Shabbir filed an appeal before the Waqf Tribunal, Bengaluru in Appeal No.2/2019, challenging the Order No. KTW/BLLS/116/SMG/2009-10, dated 11.07.2014 as is mentioned in Gazette Notification No.MWB/19(3) dated 23.02.1965 notified at serial numbers 425/ 426/ 427/ 428/ 429/ 430/ 431 and 452 in respect of the land measuring 15-00 acres in Sy.No.49 of Aralikoppa Village, Sagar Taluk, Shivamogga District.

3. The appeal was admittedly a belated appeal and therefore filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of in filing the appeal.

4. In para 6 of the affidavit, in support of application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the appellant has contended that he came to know about the notification and the Order on 01.02.2019, wherein appellant was called over telephone by somebody and informed about the Order and he was confined to a room and forcefully obtained his signature on some papers and therefore, from the date of knowledge the appeal filed on 04.02.2019 is well within time and thus sought for condoning the delay of more than four years in entertaining the appeal.

5. Notice of the appeal was issued to the respondents. First respondent namely the Karnataka State Board of Wakfs contested the matter by contending that in view of the Notification issued on 11.07.2014 as referred to supra, the petitioner was required to challenge the same within 60 days as per Section 69 (3) of the Waqf Act and beyond that time, the appeal need not be entertained.

6. Learned Trial Judge heard the arguments of the parties on the application, dismissed the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in the impugned Order, holding in paragraphs No.19 to 29 as under:

19) Admittedly Under Section 69 the order can be So when the order is challenged within sixty days. challenged after four years, the delay has to be explained.

20) Another thing to be noted is that the strong allegation are made against Respondent No.3 that fraud has been committed and signature of the Appellant is forged. In my opinion if such allegations are made it is up to the party to prove such fraud and forgery with cogent evidence. Mere allegation is not sufficient to believe the contention of the Appellant.

21) The contention is taken by the Appellant is that, inclusion of the Sy No.49 was informed on 01.02.2019 on phone. In my opinion this explanation is made only to get the case within the limitation period.

22) Another contention is that without informing the appellant, the properties included to the scheme. But the property so included is gazette Notified property, as back as in the year 1965. At one stretch appellant contend that he became muthavalli after 11.03.1994, on death of his father. For this there are no documentary evidence. Admittedly there would have been order by the KSBA. Looking from any angle the contention as to no knowledge of the inclusion of the property in the scheme of administration cannot be accepted. So under such circumstances the question of condonation of delay does not arise.

23) The learned advocate for the respondent has drawn the attention of the court, wherein the Appellant