Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2022 DAILYLAW 1630 (KAR)

SMT DILSHAD BEGUM v. THE KARNATAKA BOARD OF WAKFS

CRP/100069/2022 · 2026-02-18

Addl Registrar Judicial

body2022

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.100069 OF 2022 BETWEEN: SMT. DILSHAD BEGUM W/O ABDUL REHMAN KUNDGOL AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O: NAREGAL-582 119 TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE KARNATAKA BOARD OF WAKFS NO.6, CUNNINGHAM ROAD BENGALURU-560 052 REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. 2. THE KARNATAKA BOARD OF WAKFS NO.6, DARUL AWKAF CUNNINGHAM ROAD BENGALURU-560 052 REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 3. GADAG DISTRICT WAKF OFFICER DISTRICT WAQF ADVISORY COMMITTEE OLD ZP BUILDING OPP. KSRTC DEPOT MULGUND NAKA GADAG-582 101. 4. THE TAHASHILDAR, GADAG TAHASILDAR OFFICE BUILDING, PB ROAD GADAG-582 101. 5. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, GADAG AC OFFICE BUILDING 2 NEAR MULGUND NAKA GADAG-582101. 6. ANJUMAN–E–ISLAM, ADAVISOMAPUR VILLAGE ADAVISOMAPUR VILLAGE-582 103 TQ AND DIST: GADAG REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 7. MOHAMMED ISAQALI S/O UMMERSAB DODDAMANI AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O: ADAVISOMAPUR VILLAGE-582 103 TQ AND DIST: GADAG. 8. MOHAMMED ALI S/O. NANNESAB MESTRI AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. ADAVISOMAPUR VILLAGE-582 103 TQ AND DIST: GADAG. …RESPONDENTS THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT DATED 09.09.2021 PASSED IN KWT.GDG.SR.OS.NO.21/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE KARNATAKA WAKF TRIBUNAL AND V ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, BELAGAVI AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE REGULAR APPEAL. THIS CRP COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER As could be seen from the daily order sheet, the matter was listed on 08.11.2022. On that day, at request on behalf of learned counsel for petitioner, finally ten days time was granted to comply office objections failing which, the petition was ordered to be listed for dismissal on 21.11.2022. 3 The revision petition is listed today. So far office objections are not complied with. In view of earlier peremptory order dated:08.11.2022, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed for non-compliance of office objections. Sd/- JUDGE TKN