The present appellant claims himself to be Gaddi

Nashin and Mutawalli of Dargah Hazrat Shah Ruknoddin

Tola Alaih Rahma Sunni, village Pallapur, taluk and district

Kalaburagi. He is apprehending his removal from his

Mutawalliship by the respondent, since according to him

the respondent has passed a resolution, which is said to be

passed on 31.03.2022 (Annexure-B). The said resolution

was challenged before the learned Single Judge of this

Court in W.P.No.201060/2022, which Court by its order

dated 08.06.2022 observed that a reading of the resolution

which is at Annexure-B (the typed copy of which was said

to have been produced at Annexure-B), would go to show

that nowhere the said resolution has taken any decision to

remove the petitioner (appellant herein), however, the

3

Board has resolved to direct the Chief Executive Officer to

take necessary action in that regard. With this, the

learned

Single

Judge

observed

that

the

petitioner

approaching the Court was premature and if any order is

passed by the Chief Executive Officer of the Board

pursuant to such acceptance of the enquiry report, the

petitioner has got an alternate and efficacious remedy

against the same under Section 64 (4) of the Wakf Act,

1995. With this, his writ petition came to be dismissed as

not maintainable.

2.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted

that the said observation of the learned Single Judge that

the petitioner (appellant herein) had rushed to the Court

without waiting for any orders to be passed by the Chief

Executive Officer was itself erroneous and that at any point

of time the petitioner (appellant herein) may be thrown out

of his residence, when in fact the petitioner (appellant

herein) has got a protection under the Wakf Act for his

right of residence, he being a Gaddi Nashin and Mutawalli.

4

3.

The learned counsel for the respondent, who is

appearing through video conference, supporting the order

passed by the learned Single Judge in the above said writ

petition, submitted that the appellant herein is expected to

wait and see till the Chief Executive Officer takes any

action. He submits that the Chief Executive Officer may

even call for any reply by the present appellant to show

cause as to why the resolution not be given effect to by

proceeding further in removing the appellant.

4.

We have given a careful thought in detail to the

order passed by the learned Single Judge and also the

materials placed before us. Being fully satisfied with the

reasoning given by the learned Single Judge, we tried to

find out from the learned counsel for the appellant as to

why he is still agitating in the appeal. Even after devoting

a considerable portion of the hearing time today, the

learned counsel only submits that he gets a right to

challenge the resolution itself.

5

5.

We are not convinced with the said submission

of the learned counsel for the appellant. Admittedly, the

appellant was not a party to the alleged resolution dated

31.03.2022. Even though the Board in its resolution has

observed that the Wakf property was not safe under the

Mutawalliship of the present appellant and that the Board

may remove him as per Section 64 of the Wakf Act and

evict him from the residence situated in the premises of

the Darga, however, the very same Board, after such

deliberation and discussion, has passed a resolution which

reads as below:

"The above subject was discussed in detail along

with the report of the enquiry office and the enquiry

officer has given a detail and reasoning for his

findings. The reasoning given by the enquiry officer

is just and reasonable and the same has been

accepted by the board. The board has unanimously

resolved to accept the enquiry report and direct the

Chief Executive Officer to take necessary action in

this regard."

Thus, it is clear that Board has not resolved to

remove the appellant nor it has directed him to vacate the

6

residence said to be situated in the premises of the Darga.

On the other hand, it has directed the C