Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 9425
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
RAVI V.HOSMANI, J
SYED GOUSE ALIAS NAWAB PASHA KAZI – Appellant
Versus
KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF WAKFS – Respondent
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 100027 OF 2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI F. V. PATIL
For the Respondents: SRI D. L. LADKHAN
The court reaffirmed that ownership claims based solely on revenue records are insufficient, and the limitation period for challenging Waqf property status is strictly enforced under the Waqf Act.
Headnote:(A) Waqf Act, 1995 - Section 6 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 115 - Civil Revision Petition challenging dismissal of suit for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction regarding land claimed as Waqf property - Tribunal dismissed suit on grounds of lack of evidence for ownership and limitation under Waqf Act - Plaintiff failed to establish title based solely on revenue records. (Paras 10, 12, 24, 42)
(B) Limitation - The court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the suit was barred by limitation as it was filed beyond one year from the Gazette notification regarding property status. (Paras 42, 43)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner claimed ownership of land based on ancestral inheritance and a gift from his father, while the respondents asserted it was Waqf property as per a Gazette notification. (Paras 2, 3, 10)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to establish ownership and that the suit was filed after the limitation period. (Paras 12, 42)
Issues: The main issues included whether the plaintiff proved ownership of the suit properties and if the suit was barred by limitation under the Waqf Act. (Paras 10, 24)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that revenue records alone do not establish title and the Gazette notification is conclusive unless challenged within the stipulated time, affirming the Tribunal's dismissal of the suit. (Paras 26, 42)
Result: Revision petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of property ownership (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. arguments regarding property status and limitations (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 3. court's analysis of evidence and legal standards (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45) |
| 4. final judgment on the revision petition (Para 46) |
CAV ORDER
Challenging judgment and decree dated 04.11.2019, passed by Waqf Tribunal, Belagavi and V Addl. District & Sessions Judge ('Tribunal' for short), in case no.KWT/DHD/SR/OS No.9/2017, this petition is filed.
2. Petitioner was plaintiff in suit filed under Section 6 of Waqf Act, 1995, (for short referred to as 'Act') against defendants for declaring him as absolute owner in possession of Old Sy.no.251, New Sy.no.150/1+2+3/1 measuring 10 Acres 27 Guntas and Old Sy.no.252, New Sy.no.151/1+2+3/1 measuring 06 Acres 28 Guntas out of which 05 Acres was converted land, situated at Navalgund village, Navalgund Taluk ('Suit Properties' for short); to declare Gazette Notification dated 18/23-08-1975 published on 27.01.1977 (‘Gazette’ for short) as null and void and not binding on plaintiff and for permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering with and disturbing plaintiff's lawful possession and enjoyment of suit properties etc.
3. In plaint, it was stated, plaintiff was son of late Babajan Kazi, who was owner in possession of suit properties. It was stated, originally they belonged to his grandfather late Syed Gouse Khadar Shah Khazi. After his death, his father inherited them and in 1976, gifted them to plaintiff, who accepted gift and took possession. Thereafter he was exclusive owner in possession of suit properties.
4. During 2013, plaintiff got order from Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad ('DC' for short) for diversion of agricultural lands to residential purpose in respect of 5 Acres out of 6 Acres 28 guntas in R.S.no.151/1+2+3/1. And after approval, plaintiff formed layout by obtaining necessary permission from concerned authorities.
5. It was stated without justification, WAQF Board sent letter dated 07.08.2014 to D.C. claiming Sy.no.150 and 151 of Navalgund village, measuring 12 Acres 17 guntas was Waqf property, belonged to Jumma Maszid, Navalgund, requesting to safeguard said properties from forming layout and sale of plots. After receipt of said letter Deputy Commissioner, directed Tahsildar to submit report about factual position as on that day. In response, on 15.06.2015, Tahsildar submitted report to DC stating that lands were in possession and cultivation by plaintiff. Thereafter, on 27.01.2016, DC advised plaintiff to approach proper Court for necessary relief. It was stated suit properties were wrongly notified as Waqf properties. Therefore, plaintiff approached Karnataka Waqf Tribunal, Belagavi, by filing Application no.4/2016. By oversight, it was registered as appeal. After appearance of Waqf Board, noting error, plaintiff filed application for withdrawal with liberty to file declaratory suit. On 22.04.2017, same was allowed.
6. Hence present suit was filed. It was stated, father of plaintiff was managing affairs of Jamia Masjid, Sunni, Navalgund, and contributed for upliftment of institution. In year 1960, his father sought registration of Masjid as Waqf, as he was its Mutavalli. It was stated Masjid was maintained by his forefathers and expenses borne by them, but no application was filed in respect of suit properties and they were never used as Waqf properties. And during registration, statement of his father and others were recorded by Revenue Inspector. As suit properties were ancestral properties, after demise of father and grandfather, name of plaintiff was rightly mutated in Record of Rights ('RoR' for short).
7. It was stated, if suit properties were dedicated as Waqf by deceased Baba Jaan, then they would not have been gifted to plaintiff and his name mut
