SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
RANAPPA S/O NAGAPPA MADANKAR AND ORS – Appellant
Versus
THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER GULBARGA AND ORS – Respondent
WP/103149/2013



WP No.103149/2013

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

WRIT PETITION NO.103149 OF 2013 (GM-WAKF)

BETWEEN:

1.

Ranappa S/o Nagappa Madankar

Age: 67 Years, Occ: Agriculture

2.

Malkappa S/po Nagappa Madankar,

Died on 11-08-2014

By his LR’s

2a)

Ramesh S/o Malkappa Madankar,

Age: 29 Years, Occ:: Agriculture,

2b)

Suresh S/o Malkappa Madankar,

Age: 28 Years, Occ:: Agriculture,

2c)

Sumitra W/o Kashiray Madankar,

Age: 45 Years, Occ:: Household,

2d)

Udaykumar S/o Kashiray Madankar,

Age: 30 Years, Occ: Agriculture,

2e)

Vithal S/o Kashiray Madankar,

Age: 25 Years, Occ:: Agriculture,

All are R/o Tajsultanpur,

Dist: Kalaburgi-585101.

Note: As per order dated: 10-02-2021

3.

Neelamma W/o Laxman madankar,

Age: 53 Years, Occ:: Agriculture,

All are R/o Tajsultanpur,

Kalaburagi-585104.

... PETITIONERS

WP No.103149/2013

2

(BY SRI. Chaitanyakumar C.M, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

The Regional Commissioner,

Kalaburgai, Dist: Kalaburgi-585101.

2.

The Deputy Commissioner,

Kalaburagi, Dist: Kalaburagi-585101.

3.

The Tahsildar,

Kalaburagi, Dist:Kalaburagi-585101.

4.

The Karnataka State Wakf Board,

“Darul-Awakf”

No.6 Cunningham Road,

Bangalore-560052.

Through its Chief Executive Officer,

5.

The Karnataka State Wakf Maka Masjid,

(Vakalgera) Kalaburagi,

Through its Mutwali-583103.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY Smt. Anuradha M Desai, GA for R1 to R3, Sri. P.S. Malipatil for

R4 & R5)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT

OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE

LETTER

ISSUED

BY

THE

1ST

RESPONDENT

IN

FILE

No.SAM:KAM:PRA AA GU/BHUMI/88/2010-11 DATED: 02.04.2011

WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-E.

*****

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

1.

The petitioners claim to be the owner of Sy.No.167

measuring

17

acres

13

guntas,

Sy.No.185

WP No.103149/2013

3

measuring 15 acres 19 guntas and Sy.No.194

measuring 13 acres 22 guntas situated at Taj

Sultanpur. Occupancy rights in respect of aforesaid

lands were granted in favour of the petitioners'

father by the Land Tribunal, Gulbarga after

conducting

detailed

enquiry

on

09.06.1976.

Thereafter, name of the petitioners' father was

entered into in the revenue records. Subsequently,

mutated in the name of petitioners.

2.

As thing stood thus, on the basis of a Circular

issued

by

the

Chief

Secretary,

Bangalore,

respondent No.1-Regional Commissioner, Gulbarga

directed respondent No.2 to effect the mutation in

favour of Wakf Board. Respondent No.3-Tahsildar

without issuing any notice

to the petitioner

unilaterally entered the name of the Wakf Board in

the records of rights. It is aggrieved by the same,

the petitioners are before this Court.

WP No.103149/2013

4

3.

Sri.Chaitanya Kumar C.M., learned counsel for the

petitioners would submit that there is no such right

vested with the respondents to insert the name of

the respondent No.6 – Wakf Board.

4.

Sri.P.S.Malipatil, learned counsel for respondent

Nos.4 and 5 would submit that the entry has been

made in terms of Circular issued on 29.05.2010

recognising the Wakf to be the owner of the

property and as such, by following the procedure

under Rule 6 and Rule 7 of the Karnataka Wakf

Rules, 2017, the name of the respondent No.5 Wakf

Board was mutated and entered into the records of

rights. As such, what has been done is correct and

proper.

5.

Smt.Anuradha

M.Desai,

learned

Government

Advocate submits that the Tahsildar has acted in

terms of office note issued by respondent No.1-

Regional Commissioner.

WP No.103149/2013

5

6.

Heard Sri.Chaitanya Kumar C.M., learned counsel

for the petitioners, Smt.Anuradha M.Desai, learned

GA for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri.P.S.Mal

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top