Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 16923
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
M.I. ARUN, J
ZAKEER HUSSAIN – Appellant
Versus
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KARNATAKA BOARD OF WAKF – Respondent
Writ Petition No.200970 of 2025 (GM-WAKF)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. MALIKPASHA MOUZAN
For the Respondents: SRI. NARESH V. KULKARNI
The court directed consideration of hereditary claims for the role of Mutawalli in light of prior successes.
Headnote:The judgment examines the provisions of the Wakf Act, 1995, wherein the petitioner seeks recognition as a hereditary Mutawalli, asserting that his predecessors held this position. The court found that the respondents had not considered the petitioner's representation in the scheme for Wakf administration. The primary issue was whether the petitioner should be included in the Wakf administration scheme. The court directed the first respondent to duly consider the petitioner's request in accordance with the law. Hence, the petition was disposed of with instructions to consider the application.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner claims hereditary position. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court directive to consider petitioner's request. (Para 3) |
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN)
The grandfather and father of the petitioner were said to be Mutawallis in succession of Masjid Bijali Koliwasda (sunni). The father of the petitioner is said to have died on 19.01.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner has requested the respondents to consider his name for the post of Mutawalli of the said Masjid. As the same has not been considered so far, the present writ petition is filed with the following prayers:
“Therefore, it is most humbly prayed that, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue the Writ in nature of:
A. “Mandamus” or any other suitable directions may be issued to the Respondents No.1 and 2 to consider the Representation dated 20.02.2025 vide Annexure-F given by the Petitioner and thereby recognize the Petitioner as a Hereditary Mutawalli under the provisions of the Wakf Act , 1995.
B. Issue any other directions to the respondents as this Hon’ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of case.”
2. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that a scheme for administration of the Wakf has been framed by respondent No.2 and the same is placed before respondent No.1 for approval. However, he submits that the request of the petitioner has not been considered by respondent No.2 while framing the scheme. He further admits that the father and grandfather of the petitioner were earlier Mutawallis of the said Masjid.
3. Admittedly, the scheme for administration of the Wakf has been proposed by respondent No.2 without taking into consideration the representation of the petitioner. Hence, in my opinion, taking into consideration that the father rand grandfather of the petitioner were earlier Mutawallis of the Masjid, it would be appropriate to direct the first respondent to consider the request of the petitioner while approving the scheme for administration of the Wakf.
4. Hence, the following:
ORDER Respondent No.1 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law and take appropriate decision as to whether the petitioner has to be included or not in the scheme for administration of the Wakf of the Masjid.
Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
