Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 6022
- 1 -
WP No. 40322 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
WRIT PETITION NO. 40322 OF 2012 (LR)
BETWEEN:
1(a)
SRI. SYED MURTHUZA
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS,
SYED MUSTHAFA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
S/O SRI. SYED MURTHUZA
1(b) FATHIMUNNISSA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
W/O SYED MURTHUZA
1(c) ZEENATH UNNISA
D/O SYED MURTHUZA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
1(d) MAHABOOBUNISSA
D/O SRI. SYED MURTHUZA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
1(e) SYED HUSSAIN
S/O SRI. SYED MURTHUZA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING NEAR
PRABHAT TALKIES
KOLAR - 563 101.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. V.S. NARAYANA, ADVOCATE FOR P1(a and e)
Digitally signed
by N UMA
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
WP No. 40322 of 2012
AND:
1.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
DEPT. OF REVENUE
KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT
BANGALORE-560 001.
2.
a)
SRI. SYED MAHABOOB
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.
INAYATHULLA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
b)
RAHAMATHULLAH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
c)
SYED MAHABOOB
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
(a) to (c) ARE S/O
SRI. SYED MAHABOOB AND ARE
R/AT NO.95
SHAHINSHA NAGAR
KOLAR - 563 101.
3.
KOLAR DISTRICT WAKFA COMMITTEE
KOLAR-563 101
BY ITS SECRETARY
4.
THE LAND TRIBUNAL
KOLAR - 563 101
BY ITS SECRETARY.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHIVANANDA D.S., AGA FOR R1 AND R4;
SRI. RASHEED KHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (a-c)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL
- 3 -
WP No. 40322 of 2012
FOR RECORDS IN CASE NO.LRF 1449 OF 1978-1979, LRF-INA-
12/1998-1999 AND ALL CONNECTED FILES. QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 08.11.2011 IN CASE NO.LRF 1449/78-79 VIDE
ANNEXURE-F ON THE FILE OF THE LAND TRIBUNAL, KOLAR.
DIRECT THE MATTER TO BE DECIDED BY THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER, KOLAR AS REQUIRED BY LAW.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
Today the matter is listed for Preliminary Hearing `B'
group. Since a short question is involved in this matter,
on consent of learned counsel for the respective parties, it
is taken up for final disposal.
2. Heard Sri V.S.Narayana, learned counsel for
petitioner No.1, Sri Shivananda D.S, learned AGA for
respondent Nos.1 and 4 and also Sri Rasheed Khan,
learned counsel for respondent No.2(a – c).
3. The preliminary question raised by the petitioner
is that, the order dated 08.11.2011 passed by the
respondent No.4 - Land Tribunal is without jurisdiction. In
support of his contention, learned counsel for the
- 4 -
petitioner furnished Circular bearing No.RD.110.LRA.2005
dated 30.01.2006.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
No.2(a-c) contended that, the order passed by the fourth
respondent is appropriate and sustainable under law.
5.
Learned AGA justified the order passed by the
fourth respondent.
6.
After having heard learned counsel for the
respective parties, it is relevant to refer the relevant
portion of the Circular dated 30.01.2006, para No.4, which
reads thus:
"4. In the light of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court the Deputy Commissioners are hereby directed
to transfer all the matters pending under the Mysore
(Personal and Miscellaneous) Inam Abolition Act,
1954 (Act No.1 of 1955) the concerned Land Tribunal
for
disposal
immediately.
However,
Deputy
Commissioners are empowered and shall continue to
deal
with
the
cases
falling
under
Karnataka
(Religious and Charitable) Inam Abolition Act, 1955
- 5 -
(Act No.18 of 1955). This is in supersession of
circular dated 30.08.1997 vide No.RD INM 97."
7. On careful reading of the above circular and the
subject matter of this petition pertains to the Inam
Abolition Act, as per the Circular, the matter should be
referred to the Deputy Commissioner of the respective
jurisdiction to deal with such matters.
8.
In view of the observations made above, the
writ petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, I proceed to
pass the following:-
ORDER
(i)
The Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii)
The impugned Order dated 08.11.2011 in
case No.LRF:1449/78-79 at Annexure-F on
the file of the Land Tribunal, Kolar, is set
aside.
- 6 -
(iii)
Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file
necessary application before the Deputy
Commissioner in view of the circular stated
supra, on filing necessary application for
condonation of delay. If such application is
filed, the Deputy Commissioner is directed to
consider it appropriately by taking into
consideration the time elapsed in filing the
petition before this court.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SBN
