ORAL ORDER

Learned AGA is directed to accept notice for respondents.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by impugned communication order issued by respondent No.3 vide Annexure-A directing respondent No.4 – Tahasildar to mutate the name of respondent No.6 – Board in the RTC pertaining to Sy. No.52 measuring to an extent of 2 acres on the premises that it is a Wakf Property. Therefore, the petitioner has challenged impugned order passed by respondent No.3 – Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-A and consequent, order passed by respondent No.4 vide order dated 15.02.2019 as per Annexure –T.

3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned AGA appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.6.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner citing the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.5591/2011 and Writ Appeal No.379/2012 and also the judgment rendered by this Court relying on the Division Bench judgment would vehemently argue and contend that in the impugned mutation effected by the Tahasildar notifying the property as a Wakfs Property is in contravention of the law laid down by the Division Bench in the judgment cited supra, which is followed by this Court in the batch of writ petitions. He would further point out that the issue is squarely covered and he being a Transferee under registered sale deed for valuable sale consideration, the impugned order passed by respondent No.3 directing respondent No.4 – Tahasildar to reflect property as a Wakfs Property in RTC pertaining to the land bearing Sy. No.52 in column No.11 is not sustainable. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 would vehemently argue and contend that since matter is seized before the Hon’ble Apex Court and the petitioner’s primary objection is that the order is passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice, he would persuade this Court to remand the matter to respondent No.4 – Tahasildar to hold a fresh enquiry and pass appropriate orders.

6. Having heard the learned counsels on record, this Court is not inclined to accede to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6. This Court in batch of writ petitions in W.P. Nos.103351/2022 c/w 103349/2022 and connected matters, while following the law laid down by the Division Bench, this Court has held as under;

"7. The Division Bench judgment rendered in W.A.No.5591/2011 c/w W.A.No.379/2012 revolves around the interpretation and application of the Karnataka Certain Inam Abolition Act, 1977, particularly focusing on the vesting of inam lands with the State Government and the implications of such vesting on rights previously associated with these lands. Para 21 and 22 of the Division Bench judgment would be relevant and the same is extracted as under:

“21. The Inams Abolition Act was enacted

by the state legislature in public interest to provide

for the abolition of Religious Charitable inams in the Mysore area. It applies to religious inams including the Sringeri Jahgir and charitable inams. The explanation to sub- section (3) of Section 1 provides/extends the meaning of 'Religious inam' or 'charitable inam'. It means a grant of a village, portion of a village or land entered in the register of imams, quit-rent register, alienation register, or any revenue account maintained by or under the authority of Government as Devadaya inam Dharmadaya inam, as the case may be. 'Inamdar' means a religious or charitable institution owning an inam. Section 3 of the Act provides for consequences of vesting for an inam in the State. It provides when the notification under sub-section (4) of Section 14 in respect of any inam has been published in the Mysore Gazette, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any contract, grant or other instrument or in any other law for the time being in force, with effect on and from the date of vesting, and save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act. The consequen