The High Court of Karnataka has struck down a waqf registration certificate issued by the Karnataka State Board of Auqaf, ruling that the registration process fundamentally violated the principles of natural justice. In a decisive order, Justice T.P. Vivekananda allowed a writ petition filed by Sri Hafeez, the Mutawalli of a private family waqf, who challenged the registration of his ancestral property as a public waqf. The court determined that the Board’s decision to register the property at the behest of a tenant, without providing notice to the rightful manager, was legally unsustainable and lacked the necessary authority under the Waqf Act, 1995.

This ruling centers on property located in the Bazar Bunder village of Mangaluru, which has been the subject of long-standing civil disputes. The petitioner, as the Mutawalli, had been actively managing the property and had initiated legal action to evict tenants residing in the buildings on the land. During the pendency of these eviction proceedings, one of the tenants, identified as Mr. Ayoob, approached the Karnataka State Board of Auqaf with an application seeking to register the premises as a public waqf.

The Board responded with what the court described as "rocket speed," moving from the receipt of the tenant's representation in late October 2020 to the issuance of a formal registration certificate by December 28, 2020. Crucially, this administrative process was conducted entirely behind the back of the property’s legal custodian, who only became aware of the registration when the Board sought to join the ongoing eviction suit as a defendant.

Questionable Administrative Speed and Lack of Notice

The court’s scrutiny revealed a significant lapse in the Board's due diligence . The judicial review highlighted that the Board initiated its registration process based on a request from a party whose interests were directly adverse to the property's management—specifically, a tenant facing eviction. Justice Vivekananda noted, "It is noticed from the records that respondent No.1 has proceeded to register the waqf in respect of the property in question on the basis of the representation submitted by Mr. Ayoob who is the defendant in the suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for recovery of possession."

The court found the sequence of events highly irregular. Within roughly two months, the Board processed the request, verified the property, and issued the certificate. By failing to serve notice to the Mutawalli, the Board deprived the legal title-holder of the opportunity to object to the status of the land, thereby bypassing the mandatory procedural safeguards outlined in the Waqf Act. This lack of transparency, the court concluded, constituted a grave breach of natural justice that rendered the subsequent registration certificate null and void.

Rejection of Alternative Remedy Arguments

During the proceedings, the Karnataka State Board of Auqaf argued that the writ petition was not maintainable because the petitioner had an alternative remedy under Section 83(2) of the Waqf Act, which allows parties to approach the Waqf Tribunal. The Board contended that all disputes concerning the title or registration of waqf property must be adjudicated through this specialized forum.

However, Justice Vivekananda rejected this argument, citing established legal precedents regarding the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India . The court emphasized that when an administrative order suffers from a patent lack of jurisdiction or violates fundamental principles of fairness, the High Court is not required to relegate the aggrieved party to an alternative tribunal. The court observed, "Since the registration of the waqf is grossly in violation of the principles of natural justice , the petitioner cannot be relegated to file a suit under Section 83 of the Waqf Act ."

The court further noted that forcing the petitioner to initiate fresh litigation before the Tribunal would be unjust given that the Board's registration process had already been shown to be flawed on the face of the record.

Protecting Private Family Lineage

The dispute also touched upon the distinction between private and public waqf properties. The property in question was established by an ancestor, Late Hasanabba, through a registered deed dated January 8, 1945. Evidence presented to the court demonstrated that the deed specifically intended for the property to remain a private family waqf to be managed by lineal descendants.

The judgment highlights that there was no legal basis for the Board to convert this private family arrangement into a public waqf. Judicial records confirmed that the status of this specific property had been adjudicated in previous civil suits, where courts consistently affirmed that the waqf created by Late Hasanabba was a private family trust. The Board’s decision to register it as a public waqf essentially ignored these prior civil findings, which had already reached finality before the High Court in earlier litigation.

The court stated: "It was not the intention of late Mr. Hasanabba that the property would go to the hands of Auqaf Board or under the management of a waqf. Therefore, it cannot be said that under the aforesaid document, a public waqf is created." By ignoring the clear intent of the creator and the history of judicial findings, the Board’s actions were characterized as an overreach that disregarded the rights of the family Mutawalli .

Ultimately, the High Court allowed the writ petition and issued an order quashing the Waqf Registration Certificate dated December 28, 2020. The court clarified that this decision is final regarding the validity of the registration certificate itself. However, it explicitly stated that this quashing would not impede the adjudication of rights between the parties in the ongoing civil suits or other pending legal proceedings. By nullifying the certificate, the court has effectively removed the Board’s claim to the property as a public waqf, ensuring that the existing eviction litigation can proceed without the interference of the improperly registered status. The ruling serves as a stark reminder to authorities that the statutory powers granted under the Waqf Act must be exercised within the bounds of procedural fairness and respect for private property rights.