ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking the following prayer:

“W.P.No.100007/2024

a. Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other writ in the same nature quashing the order of Respondent No.2 bearing No. ENQ-52/43/BGM/2019 dated. 16/03/2023 copy as per ANNEXURE-R and letter bearing no.KSBA/ENQ- 52/43/BGM/2019 dated 11/10/2023 Respondent No.2 copy as per Annexure-S and/or.

b. Pass any other orders deemed fit in facts and circumstances of the case.

W.P.No.101243/2024

a. Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other writ in the same nature quashing the order bearing no.ENQ-52/43/BGM/2019 dated. 16/03/2023 passed by the 2^nd respondent copy as per ANNEXURE-R and order bearing No. RB/WAKF/52(2)CR-03/2023-24 dated 13/12/2023 passed by the 3^rd respondent copy as per ANNEXURE-S and/or b. Pass any other orders deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. The facts in brief germane to the case are as follows:

The subject properties were granted occupancy rights by the Land Tribunal in favour of the petitioners on 06.06.1981, pursuant to the notification issued by the 1^st respondent on 18.05.1979. After the Land Tribunal granted the occupancy rights, the petitioners have been in possession of the said land since then.

3. The issue now concerns the respondent-Wakf claiming rights over the petitioners’ property on the ground that it was a property notified under the 1954 Act, and therefore the petitioners have no right to claim ownership over the said property.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Jagadish Patil, submits that the order of the Land Tribunal dated 06.06.1981 remains intact even today, as the respondent-Wakf has not challenged it. Without challenging the said order, the Wakf cannot claim a right to take over the petitioner’s property on the ground that it formed part of the notification issued under the 1954 Act.

5. Learned counsel, Sri D.L.Ladkhan, submits that an order has been passed under Section 51 of the Waqf Act and therefore, the petitioner has no right to claim over the property, notwithstanding the fact that the same forms part of the Wakf notification issued in the year 1954.

6. In the light of the aforesaid circumstances, it becomes necessary to examine whether an order could have been passed under Section 52 of the Wakf Act, notwithstanding the order passed by the Land Tribunal in 1981, which remains intact even today.

7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute.

8. The issue now lies within a narrow compass. The order of the Land Tribunal dated 06.06.1981, which conferred rights upon the petitioners, has not been challenged by the Waqf or any other person. Therefore, the petitioners, or their legal heirs, continue to be in possession of the property.

9. In the light of the order passed under Section 52 of the Wakf Act by the respondent-Wakf is contrary to law. In identical circumstances, considering an identical challenge, this court, in W.P.No.105909/2023, has held as follows:

“The petitioner is before this Court calling in question a notice dated 01.02.2023 by which the petitioner is directed to appear before the Wakf Board to establish as to why the sale that has happened in contravention of Section 52 of the Waqf Act should not be annulled.

2. Heard the learned counsel Sri. Shriharsh A. Neelopant, appearing for the petitioner, the learned counsel Sri. D.L. Ladkhan for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the learned AGA for respondent No.3.

3. Facts in brief germane are as follows.

4. The petitioner is said to be the absolute owner in possession of the property in Survey No.8/4 measuring 1 acre 18 guntas situated in Huvinahal village of Taluk and District Koppal, in terms of a registered sale deed dated 26.05.2022 executed by one Basavarajgouda Umeshgouda. A little history to the case is that the Land Tribunal considering the claim and possession of Khadarsab on the subject property under Service Inam or Khidmati Inam passes an order