- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21225 WP No. 48857 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 48857 OF 2014 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: 1. SRI A.NANJEGOWDA, S/O PATEL ANKEGOWDA, DIED BY HIS L.R., SMT.GOWRAMMA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS. 2. SRI BOREGOWDA, S/O PATEL ANKEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS. 3. SRI NINGEGOWDA, S/O PATEL ANKEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, ALL ARE R/O MURUKANAHALLI, SHILANERE HOBLI, K.R.PET TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI HALESHA R.G.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPT. BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 01. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA - 571 401. Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21225 WP No. 48857 of 2014 3. ASSISTANT COMISSIONER, PANDAVAPURA DIVISION, PANDAVAPURA, MANDYA DISTRICT - 471 401. 4. TAHSILDAR, K.R.PETE TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 426. 5. SECRETARY, KARNATAKA WAKF BOARD, BANGALORE - 03. 6. SHRI RASHEED PASHA, S/O MOHAMMED BEG SAB, AGE NOT KNOWN, PRIEST OF HAJARATH PEER SHA HADRI DARGA, MURUKANAHALLI, SHILENERE HOBLI, K.R.PET TALUK - 571 426. MANDYA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R1 TO R4;) SMT.S.R.ANURADHA, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL ALONG WITH SMT.SABAHATH SULTANA, ADVOCATE FOR R5; AND SRI S.A.SABOOR, ADVOCATE FOR R6) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14.06.2011 IN R.P.NO.122/2002 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-N CONFIRMING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24.05.2002 IN R.MISC.NO.165/00-01 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-M. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21225 WP No. 48857 of 2014 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioners are assailing the order dated 14.06.2011 in R.P.No.122/2002 passed by respondent No.2 (Annexure-N) confirming the order dated 24.05.2002 in R.Mis.No.165/00-01 passed by respondent No.3 (Annexure-M), inter alia, sought for direction to the respondents-Authorities, to effect revenue records into the name of the petitioners. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that, the land measuring 2 acres 27 guntas in survey No.169/7 situated at Murukanahalli village, K.R.Pete Taluk, Mandya District, belonged to one Chennegowda, S/o Boregowda, who had sold the land in question in favour of the father of the petitioners, i.e., Late Ankegowda, on two sale deeds dated 06.02.1947 and 10.07.1947. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21225 WP No. 48857 of 2014 4. It is stated in the petition that, the petitioners have purchased the land to an extent of 1 acre 27 guntas and the remaining 1 acre was the Poot Kharab land, for which the petitioners have filed Form No.2 seeking patta in respect of the said land as per Annexure-B. It is also stated that, the respondents-Authorities have issued the RTC extracts in favour of the petitioners to the entire extent of 2 acres 27 guntas in Sy.No.169/7. 5. It is the case of the petitioners that, from 1973- 74 upto 2001-02, the father of the petitioners was in possession of the land in question and record of rights stand in the names of the petitioners. Thereafter, there was a partition in the family and as such, the land to an extent of 2 acres 27 guntas was mutated in favour of the petitioners herein as per M.R.No.14/86-87 based on M.R.No.9/87-88, which is produced at Annexures-H1 and H2 respectively. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21225 WP No. 48857 of 2014 6. It is further stated in the writ petition that, the proceedings in R.Mis.No.165/00-01 was initiated before respondent No.3 as per Annexure-M and respondent No.3 by order dated 24.05.2002 allowed the appeal preferred by the private respondents herein and stated that, the land to an extent of 1 acre is the Kharab land and as per the Notification dated 30.10.1964 issued by the State Government, the land to an extent of 1 acre has been earmarked for the Wakf Board and therefore, passed an order at Annexure-M dated 24.05.2002. 7. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein have preferred a Revision Petition before respondent No.2 in R.P.No.122/2002. Respondent No.2 after considering the material on record vide order dated 14.06.2011, dismissed the Revision Petition and as such, confirmed the Notification issued by the Government in respect of the subject land in favour of the Wakf Board. Being aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21225 WP No. 48857 of 2014 8. Heard Sri Halesha R.G., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri Manjunath K., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4, Smt.S.R.Anuradha, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Smt.Sabahath Sultana, learned counsel for respondent No.5 and Sri S.A.Saboor, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6. 9. Sri Halesha R.G., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners invited the attention of the Court to the RTC extracts produced at Annexure-G series and contended that, the entire extent of land in possession i.e., 2 acres 27 guntas in survey No.169/7 is belonged to the father of the petitioners having purchased the same from its erstwhile owner Chennegowda as per the registered sale deeds referred to above. He also invited the attention of the Court to the RTC extracts produced by the respondent-Government through affidavit filed by the Tahasildhar, K.R.Pete Taluk, wherein the extent of 2.28 acres was shown in the name of the petitioners. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21225 WP No. 48857 of 2014 Accordingly, he submitted that, 1 acre of land, which is the Kharab land, which has been allocated in favour of the petitioners are concerned and therefore, the impugned order passed by the respondents-Authorities requires to be interfered in this writ petition. 10. He further contended that, the petitioners herein have also made an application to respondent No.4- Tahasildar seeking regularisation of the Kharab land in favour of the petitioners are concerned and the same has been considered by the respondents-Authorities and in that view of the matter, the petitioners are the absolute owner to an extent of 2.27 acres of land in Sy.No.169/7 and therefore, sought for interference of this Court. 11. In this regard, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Board of Muslim Wakfs, Rajasthan v/s Radha Kishan and Others reported in (1979) 2 Supreme Court Cases 468 and contends that, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21225 WP No. 48857 of 2014 declaring particular land in question to be Wakf property in terms of the Wakf Act is not binding insofar as the private parties are concerned, in the event that, the private parties are in possession of the land in question. Accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 12. Per contra, Smt.S.R.Anuradha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.5 submitted that, the land to an extent of 1 acre 27 guntas was purchased by the father of the petitioners and subject land in the present writ petition, i.e., 1 acre of land is Kharab land, which has been notified as per the Government Notification in favour of the Wakf Board. It is further contended by the learned Senior Counsel that, as dispute is with regard to the title of the properties are concerned, it is expedient for this Court to direct the petitioners to establish their rights in the manner known to law. Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21225 WP No. 48857 of 2014 13. It is also contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.5-Wakf Board that, the said land has been allotted in favour of respondent No.5-Wakf Board as per the Notification dated 30.10.1964 and the land to an extent of 1 acre has been notified to respondent No.5 as per the Government Notification dated 30.10.1964 and therefore, since the said Notification is unchallenged by the petitioners herein till date, no relief would be granted to the petitioners in this writ petition. Insofar as the judgment referred to by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the case of Board of Muslim Wakfs, Rajasthan (supra) that, the declaration of the law made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case is to relegate the parties to establish their rights in respect of the subject land before a competent Civil Court and in that view of the matter, counter submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, cannot be accepted. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21225 WP No. 48857 of 2014 14. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 argued on similar lines to that of learned High Court Government Pleader, referring to an affidavit (paragraph 7) filed by the Tahasildar, K.R.Pete Taluk and contended that, the scheduled land is a private land and not a Government/Gomala land and therefore, he contended that, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed by confirming the impugned orders passed by the respondents-Authorities. 15. In light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on careful examination of the writ papers, it would indicate that, the father of the petitioners is said to have purchased the land to an extent of 1 acre 27 guntas in survey No. 169/7 and further, the subject matter of the land in the writ petition, with regard to 1 acre in excess of the same being Kharab land. Again, on careful examination of the writ papers, it would indicate that, the petitioners have made an application to the Tahasildar, K.R.Pete, seeking allotment - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21225 WP No. 48857 of 2014 of the said Kharab land being adjacent land of the petitioners as per Annexure-F. 16. In light of the said aspect, it is also forthcoming from the RTC extracts as per Annexure-G series appended to an affidavit filed by the Tahasildar, K.R.Pete Taluk that, total extent in survey No.169/7 is 2.28 acres, wherein the name of the petitioners as well as respondent No.5 find place in their record of rights. 17. By taking into consideration aforementioned aspects on record, as the affidavit filed by respondent No.4-Tahasildar would indicate that, 2.28 acres of land in the present writ petition, is considered to be as a Hiduvali land and therefore, taking into consideration the fact that, as per the Government Notification dated 30.10.1964 the land in question has been notified as per the provisions contained under the Wakf Act and in that view of the matter, taking into consideration whether the application made by the petitioners herein at Annexure-F has been - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21225 WP No. 48857 of 2014 considered and further, the total extent of 2.28 acres has been made in favour of the petitioners herein has to be re-considered by the respondent-Authorities, afresh. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 24.05.2002 at Annexure-M passed by respondent No.3 and the order dated 14.06.2011 at Annexure-N passed by respondent No.2 are hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner to consider the entire case of the parties on merits after affording opportunity to the petitioners as well as the representatives of the Wakf Board and respondent No.6 and take a decision in the matter in accordance with law. The said exercise has to be made at the earliest. 18. All contentions of the parties are kept open to be urged before the competent authority. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE CPN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 90