Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 52381
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CRP No.200015/2022 (RES)
BETWEEN:
Mr. Syed Shah Sirajuddin Hussaini
S/o Syed Shah Bashiruddin Hussaini,
Aged about 58 years,
R/o H.No.1-195, Behind Raj Darbar,
Kalaburagi-585 102.
... Petitioner
(By Sri. Abdul Muqhtadir, Advocate)
AND:
1.
Late. Zohara Sayeed
W/o Syed Rashed Ali,
D/o Syed Shah Maqdum Hussaini,
Since deceased
Represented by her LRs.
1(a) Syed Rashid Ali
S/o Syed Kasim Ali,
Aged about 80 years,
Occ: Rtd. Govt. Servant,
R/o: H.No.7-974/C, Mijgori,
Near Mohammadiya Masjid,
Naya Mohalla, Kalaburag-585 104.
1(b) Mrs. Seema Hashmi Syeda
W/o Quazi Saleemoddin,
2
Aged about 52 years,
Occ: Associate Professor,
R/o Near Muktal Lawns,
Zum Zum Colony, Beed,
Maharashtra-431 122.
1(c) Asema W/o Jahiroddin Patel,
Age: 50 years, Occ: Household,
R/o Jama Masjid Chowk,
Village Alas, Tq: Shirol,
Kolhapur-416 104.
1(d) Mr. Syed Muzammil
S/o Syed Rashid Ali,
Age: 46 years,
Occ: Business,
R/o. H.No.4/12/34/A,
New Colony, Roshon Gate,
Aurangabad, Maharashtra-431 001.
1(e) Mr. Syed Shah Moinuddin Hussaini
S/o Syed Rashid Ali,
Age:44 years, Occ: Pvt. work,
R/o H.No.4/12/34/A,
New Colony Roshon Gate,
Aurangabad, Maharashtra-431 001.
1(f) Mr. Syed Mudassir Ali
S/o Syed Rashid Ali,
Age: 40 years, Occ: Pvt. work,
R/o H.No.4/12/34/A,
New Colony Roshon Gate,
Aurangabad, Maharashtra-431 001.
1(g) Mr. Hashmi Syed Maqdoom Hussaini
S/o Syed Rashid Ali,
Age: 39 years, Occ: Pvt. work,
R/o H.No.4/14/34/A,
New Colony Roshon Gate,
Aurangabad, Maharashtra-431 001.
3
1(h) Mr. Hashmi Syed ghouse Mohiuddin,
S/o Syed Rashid Ali,
Age: 37 years, Occ: Business,
R/o H.No.4/12/34/A,
New Colony, Roshon Gate,
Aurangabad, Maharashtra-431 001.
2.
The Chairman,
Karnataka Wakf Board,
No.6, Cunningham Road,
Bangalore-560 001.
3.
The CEO,
Karnataka Wakf Board,
No.6, Cunningham Road,
Bangalore-560 001.
4.
The Chairman,
DWC, Kalaburagi,
Station Road,
Kalaburagi-585 101.
… Respondents
* * *
This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section
83(9) proviso of the Waqf Act, 1995, praying to set
aside the order passed by the Karnataka Waqf Tribunal
at
Kalaburagi,
in
Application
No.5/2012
dated
30.04.2022 vide Annexure-C by allowing this revision
petition and award costs.
This petition coming on for Admission this day, the
Court made the following:
4
This revision petition is filed against the order dated
30.04.2022 passed by the Karnataka Waqf Tribunal,
Kalaburagi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for
short) in Application No.05/2012, wherein the objections
raised for admitting the General Power of Attorney (for
short ‘GPA’) on the ground of stamp duty came to be
rejected.
The records disclose that the applicants have
produced a registered General Power of Attorney dated
17.02.2022 executed by 8 executants in favour of the
applicants and the learned counsel for respondent No.4
objected the same on the ground that it is not sufficiently
stamped and contended that since 8 executants are there,
each one ought to have paid separate stamp duty and
hence, he has raised objection. The Tribunal, after
appreciating the documents has rejected the objection and
accepted the General Power of Attorney holding that it is
sufficiently stamped and admissible in evidence.
5
The learned counsel for the revision petitioner
would contend that there are 8 executants and each of
them are required to pay individual stamp duty. It is to be
noted here that the GPA came to be registered in
Maharashtra State and it is produced before the Tribunal
during the course of the trial on behalf of GPA Holder. The
contention of the petitioner is that the stamp duty paid
was improper in view of the fact that each executants are
required to pay individual stamp duty. But, the Stamp Act
does not provide payment of individual stamp duty. Apart
from that, the GPA was registered and the Sub-Registrar
himself while registering the GPA did not raise any
objection for stamp duty. Under these circumstances, the
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it
is not sufficiently stamped cannot be accepted.
Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has
further placed reliance on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex
Court reported in AIR 1956 SC 35 in the case of The
Member, Board of Revenue Vs. Arthur Paul Benthall,
6
but the facts and circumstances are entirely different. In
the said case, the GPA was executed in respect of
individual matters and in respect of distinct matters, it is
held that individual stamp duty is required to be paid. But,
in the instant case, all the executants together executed
the GPA in favour of GPA Holder and hence, a common
stamp duty was collected. Whether the conveyance
charges are required to be paid is required to be
considered only when execution of the deed will come into
play and at this juncture, the document is only produced in
the court of law to enable the GPA Holder to prosecute on
behalf of the executants.
5.
Under
the
circumstances,
the
principles
enunciated in the above stated decision will not come to
the aid of the petitioner in any way. The ground urged
regarding insufficient stamp duty holds no water and the
document is properly stamped. Hence, the petition is
devoid of any merits and the impugned order does not call
for any interference by this Court.
7
Accordingly, the revision petition stands dismissed.
In view of disposal of the petition, I.A.1/2022 for
stay does not survive for consideration and the same
stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
LG
