The court affirmed that the plaintiff's ownership of land is valid and separate from disputed Wakf property, grounded in legal precedents and substantial evidence.

ORDER :

1. Heard Smt. Azra J. Dundge, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri. Manoj Gowda, learned counsel for the respondents representing Sri. P. Mahesha and Sri. Bhojegoyda T. Koller, Additional Government Advocate.

2. Second defendant in O.S. No.4/2016 is the revision petitioner challenging the Order passed by the Wakf Tribunal dated 08.07.2019 allowing the petition filed by the first respondent/plaintiff and declared that Public notice dated 10.12.2010 and Corrigendum dated 15.06.2011 bearing No.KBW/EDM/08/CTA/2010-2011 are not binding on the plaintiff. The property involved in the suit OS No.4/2016 is different from the property claimed by the defendants as Muslim graveyard and granted an order of permanent injunction from interfering with the suit property.

3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under:

3.1 In respect of the following immovable property, initially suit for permanent injunction came to be filed, later on amended including prayer for declaration:

SCHEDULE

All the piece and parcel of Sy.No.10/3B, measuring an extent of 3 acre, situated at Cholgatta Village, Chitradurga Taluk, now called as Jayakumar Layout Mahaveernagar, Chitradurga and bounded on :

East : B.D. Road i.e., N.H.4

West : Road to Railway Y Station

North: Property belonging to Gowdara Jayanna

South : 40 feet Municipal Road.

3.2 Suit property according to the plaintiff originally belonged to Sri. J.M. Tippeswamy, who is the brother of the plaintiff, who had purchased the same through a registered sale deed dated 09.07.1956 from its' previous owner Sri Giriyappa.

3.3 Plaintiff and his brother, Sri. Tippeswamy have partitioned their properties in which suit property had fallen to the share of the plaintiff by partition deed dated 29.07.1968.

3.4 Thus, plaintiff claimed that he is the absolute owner in possession of the suit property having mutated the revenue entries in his name vide Order passed in M.R. No.6/1968-69.

3.5 Plaintiff further applied for conversion of the suit property for non-agricultural purpose and accordingly Deputy Commissioner after verifying the material documents placed before him, passed an Order on 17.11.1984 granting the conversion of the usage of the land for non-agricultural.

3.6 Plaintiff thereafter formed a residential layout in the suit property remarketing the house sites.

3.7 It is also contented by the plaintiff that he has sold number of sites and people have constructed their houses and they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property.

3.8 It is further contention of the plaintiff that in the year 1987, at the instigation of fourth defendant, some persons by name Patel Mohammod Noorulla and others started interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and at that point of time plaintiff was constrained to file a suit in OS No.286/1987 before the Principal Civil Judge, Chithradurga which got decreed in favour of the plaintiff and there was an Order of permanent injunction.

3.9 It is further contented that during the pendancy of the said suit, said Mohammod Noorulla and others challenged the license issued by the City Municipal Council Chitradurga before the Deputy Commissioner in proceedings bearing No.RP No.39/1987-88 and said petition was also dismissed.

3.10 In respect of Serial No.322 of gazette notification pertaining to Agasanakallu Village, Mohammod Noorulla and others challenged the judgment and decree in OS No.286/1987 in Miscell