Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 25315
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
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: F. V. Patil
For the Respondents: D. L. Ladkhan
The court held that a failure to independently establish ownership and that the suit was barred by limitation under Waqf Act provisions was decisive, emphasizing that revenue records alone do not confer title.
Headnote:(A) Waqf Act, 1995 - Sections 83(9), 6, and 7 - Suit for declaration of ownership and injunction - Petition challenging dismissal of suit under Waqf Act for failure to prove ownership and possession was ruled as barred by limitation due to failure to file within one year of Gazette Notification. (Paras 3, 10, 18, 41)
(B) Legal principles - Dismissal of suit based solely on revenue records is erroneous; title must be established independently of such records. (Paras 28, 32)
(C) Legal knowledge - Notice of Gazette publication does not apply to claims of right over Waqf properties, barring limitations for third parties. (Paras 36, 42)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner claimed ownership of properties gifted by his father, contending they were not Waqf properties, while the respondents maintained they were Waqf properties based on prior gazette publication. (Paras 2, 6)
Findings of Court:
The tribunal incorrectly concluded that due compliance under Waqf Act was unnecessary for the gazette's validity. Overall findings supported that the petitioner failed to establish title, and applicability of limitation was upheld. (Paras 26, 38)
Issues: Whether the petitioner proved ownership, whether the gazette notification is binding; whether the suit was barred by limitation due to gazette publication. (Paras 10, 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The tribunal’s criteria for dismissing the petitioner’s suit were procedural and substantial errors regarding limitations and evidence of ownership, and the Gazette's presumption of Waqf properties was incorrectly applied. (Paras 24, 38)
Result: Revision Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. ownership claim based on family inheritance. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. defendants assert properties as waqf. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. court limits its review to correctness and propriety. (Para 12 , 25 , 27 , 38) |
| 4. plaintiff argues for rulings on title and limitation. (Para 13 , 16 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. defendants must prove gazette’s issuance compliance. (Para 34 , 36) |
| 6. need for additional evidence evaluated. (Para 44 , 45) |
| 7. final decision: revision petition dismissed. (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 no
