Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 25528

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Ashok S. Kinagi, J
Karnataka State Wakf Board – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 104233 OF 2015

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: J S Shetty
For the Respondents: M B Kanavi, I.A. Mulla

Registration of a property as a Wakf under the Wakf Act, 1995 requires strict compliance with statutory procedures, including notice to and hearing of the party administering the property; failure to do so renders the registration invalid.

Headnote:(A) Wakf Act, 1995 - Section 36(7) - Registration of property as Wakf property - Requirement of notice - Mandatory procedure - Proper notice and hearing to the party administering the property is essential before registration - Failure to issue such notice to the actual owner/administrator renders the registration illegal, null, and void. (Paras 45, 54, 61)

(B) Cantonment Land Administration Rules - General Land Register (GLR) entries - Ownership of land - GLR entries maintained under these rules constitute strong and reliable evidence of title to the land. (Para 47)

(C) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Scope of supervisory jurisdiction - The Court under Article 227 does not exercise appellate jurisdiction to correct mere errors of fact or law, but ensures that lower courts or tribunals act within their legal bounds. (Paras 57, 59)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff (Union of India) filed a suit for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction against the registration of certain lands as Wakf properties by the defendant Wakf Board. The plaintiff claimed title based on GLR extracts indicating the land as defence property. The defendant Board argued that the suit was barred by limitation and the registration was valid under the Wakf Act.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal correctly found that the property belonged to the plaintiff and the registration as Wakf property was done without complying with the mandatory procedural requirements, specifically lack of notice to the actual owner. The High Court upheld the findings, noting that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any legal infirmity.

Issues: Whether the plaintiff proved the registration was illegal and whether the suit was barred by limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: Registration of a property as Wakf without following the mandatory statutory requirement of notice and hearing the person in administration of the property is invalid, and entries in the GLR constitute reliable evidence of ownership.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. summary of proceedings and facts leading to the suit. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
2. arguments presented by the parties regarding title and limitation. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
3. analysis of evidence, glr significance, and procedural lapse. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51)
4. statutory analysis of section 36 of the wakf act regarding registration procedures. (Para 52 , 53 , 54 , 55)
5. final reasoning on limitation and scope of supervisory jurisdiction under article 227. (Para 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64)

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment dated 06.01.2015 passed in KWT/BGM/SR/OS No.1 of 2013 by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge and Karnataka Wakf Tribunal, Belagavi¹‘the WAQF Tribunal’.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. The petitioner was defendant No.2, respondent No.1 was the plaintiff, and respondent No.2 was defendant No.1 before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:

4. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration declaring that the suit schedule properties are the properties of the plaintiff, and for a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining defendant No.1, his agents or anybody claiming through him, from interfering with the peaceful possession, use, and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties by the plaintiff.

5. It is the case of the plaintiff that the Defence land bearing General Land Register²GLR Survey No.245 measuring 5 acres 9 guntas described as a sanitary cordon situated within the limits of the Cantonment and GLR Survey No.247 measuring 6 acres 47 guntas, are the properties belonging to the plaintiff. It is contended that the name of the plaintiff is reflected in the GLR extract as the owner and that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule properties.

6. It is contended that the defendant No.1 had no right, title or interest over the suit schedule properties and that Hatti Asadkhan Dargah is no way concerned with the said properties. The predecessors of defendant No.1 had earlier filed a civil suit in O.S. No.186 of 1928 against the Secretary of State, which came to be dismissed. An appeal in Appeal No.236 of 1932 was also dismissed, confirming the judgment in O.S. No.186 of 1928. A second appeal in 319/1935, which was filed, also came to be dismissed.

7. It is alleged that the defendant No.1, with mala fide intention to grab the suit schedule properties, got them registered as a WAQF properties on 05.08.2008. The registration of the suit schedule properties as a WAQF properties was made behind the back of the plaintiff. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 30.10.2012 to the defendants. The legal notice was served on defendant No.2, however defendant No.1 has not claimed the notice. Hence, the cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file suit for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit.

8. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and also denied the description of the suit schedule properties. It is contended that the suit properties consist of Dargah and old graveyards(cemetery) and the Dargah, and Cemetery does not become the Defence properties. It is further contended that the plaintiff has no right, title, or interest over the suit schedule properties, as they are WAQF properties belonging to Hatti Asadkhan Dargah and the suit schedule properties were registered as WAQF properties with defendant No.2 on 05.08.2008 in the Kitablu Awakf at Sl.No.687 and were notified in the Gazette Notification dated 29.05.2008, and that the plaintiff is well aware about the nature

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 25528

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAAshok S. Kinagi, JKarnataka State Wakf Board – AppellantVersusUnion of India – RespondentWRIT PETITION NO. 104233 OF 2015

Registration of a property as a Wakf under the Wakf Act, 1995 requires strict compliance with statutory procedures, including notice to and hearing of the party administering the property; failure to do so renders the registration invalid.

Cases Referred (2)

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Ashok S. Kinagi, J
Karnataka State Wakf Board – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 104233 OF 2015