1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 26096 OF 2012 (LR) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 19739 OF 2017 (GM-WAKF) WRIT PETITION NO. 35473 OF 2015 (GM-WAKF) WRIT PETITION NO. 4874 OF 2012 (LR) W.P.No. 26096/2012 BETWEEN: 1 . KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF WAKFS 6, CUNNINGHAM ROAD BANGALORE-560053. THROUGH ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ...PETITIONER (BY SMT. S.R. ANURADA, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SMT. SWATHI ASHOK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE LAND TRIBUNAL ANEKAL. 2 . SRI. SOMASEKHARA REDDY S/O VENKAT REDDY MAJOR 3 . SRI. KODANDARAMA SWAMY S/O VENKAT REDDY MAJOR 2 4 . SRI. CHANDRA SHEKHAR REDDY S/O VENKAT REDDY MAJOR 5 . SMT. TIPPA SUNDARAMMA D/O VENKAT REDDY MAJOR 6 . SMT. VINODAMMA D/O VENKAT REDDY MAJOR 7 . SMT. SUJATHAMMA D/O VENKAT REDDY MAJOR R2 TO R7 ARE ALL RESIDING AT K.R.BEEDHI NEAR POLICE STATION SARJAPURA, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT. 8 . SMT. ASMUNNISSA W/O ABDUL WAHAB MAJOR 9 . SRI. INAYUTHULLA KHAN S/O ABDUL WAHAB MAJOR 10 . SRI. LIYAQATHULLA KHAN S/O ABDUL WAHAB MAJOR 11 . SRI. HIDAYATHULLA KHAN S/O ABDUL WAHAB MAJOR 12 . SRI. SADATHULLA KHAN S/O ABDUL WAHAB MAJOR 3 13 . SMT. SAJIDA KHATOON D/O ABDUL WAHAB MAJOR 14 . SMT. ZAHEDA KHATOON D/O ABDUL WAHAB MAJOR R8 TO R14 ARE ALL RESIDING NEAR CHOTI MASJID, FORT AREA SARJAPURA, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. VAHEEDA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI. SARAVANA AND SRI. VIGNESHWARA .U, ADVOCATES FOR R2; SRI. SHAIKH SAOUD, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. MAHMOOD PATEL, ADVOCATE FOR R4; NOTICE TO R5 AND R9 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; NOTICE TO R6, R8, R10 TO R14 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL IN THE PROCEEDINGS INA/CR/54/4998-99 DATED 31.10.2011, VIDE ANNEXURE-A. W.P.No. 19739/2017 BETWEEN: 1 . SRI. K V SOMASHEKARA REDDY S/O LATE K.R. VENKATA REDDY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 2 . SRI. KODANDA RAMASWAMY REDDY S/O LATE K.R. VENKATA REDDY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS 4 3 . SRI. CHANDRASHEKARA REDDY S/O LATE K.R. VENKATA REDDY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS PETITIONERS NO. 1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING AT SARJAPURA SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE-562 125. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI. SARAVANA, AND SRI. VIGNESHWARA .U, ADVOCATES) AND: 1 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT BANGALORE-01. 2 . THE TAHASILDAR ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL-562 104. 3 . HAZARATH MOMABATH SHAH MUKAAN JAMIYA MUSJID RERPESENTED BY THE PRESIDENT OF MANAGING COMMITTEE SARJAPURA HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK-562 125. 4 . THE KARNATAKA WAKF BOARD BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY BENGALURU-560 052. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VAHEEDA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. M.H. HANEEF, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SMT. S.R. ANURADA, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SMT. SWATHI ASHOK, ADVOCATE FOR R4) 5 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 4.12.2015 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DISTRICT, BANGALORE IN MR H 69/2015-16 EFFECTING MUTATION AND PAHANIS IN THE NAME OF THE R-3 IN COLUMN NO.9 AND 12(2) OF RTC AND PAHANIS IN RESPECT OF LAND BEARING SY.NO.558 MEASURING 5 ACRES 19 GUNTAS OF SARJAPURA, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK VIDE ANNEXURE-A. W.P.No. 35473/2015 BETWEEN: 1 . K.V. SOMASHEKARA REDDY S/O LATE VENKATAREDDY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT SARJAPURA, SARJAPURA HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK-562 125 BANGALORE DISTRICT ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI. SARAVANA, AND SRI. VIGNESHWARA .U, ADVOCATES) AND: 1 . THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ENQUIRY OFFICER KARNATAKA KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF WAKFS NO.6, CUNNINGHAM ROAD BANGALORE-560 052. 2 . THE JAMIA MASJID (SUNNI) SARJAPURA , ANEKAL TALUK-562 125 BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT REP BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE MANAGING COMMITTEE 6 3 . SRI. INAYATHULLAH KHAN S/O LATE ABDUL WAHAB KHAN AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 4 . SRI. LIYAQATH KHAN S/O LATE ABDUL WAHAB KHAN AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 5 . SRI. HIDAYATHULLA KHAN S/O LATE ABDUL WAHAB KHAN AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 6 . SMT. ZAHEDA KHANUM D/O LATE ABDUL WAHAB KHAN AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 7 . SMT. HAJIRA KHANUM D/O LATE ABDUL WAHAB KHAN AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 8 . SRI. SADATULLA KHAN S/O LATE ABDUL WAHAB KHAN AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS 9 . SMT. ASEEMA KHATOON W/O LATE ABDUL WAHAB KHAN AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R-3 TO R9 ARE R/AT KHAZIWADA SARJAPURA TOWN SARJAPURA POST ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT-562 125. 10 . SRI. AMEERUDDIN @ SALAMATH S/O LATE KHAZI ABDUL KHUDDUS AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 11 . SRI. KHAZI ABDUL WAHAB S/O LATE KHAZI ABDUL KHUDDUS AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 7 R-10 AND R-11 ARE R/AT KAHZIWADA SARJAPURA TOWN SARJAPURA POST, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT-562 125. 12 . SRI. KODANDA RAMA SWAMY S/O LATE K.R. VENTAKATA REDDY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS 13 . SRI. CHANDRA SHEKARA REDDY S/O LATE K.R. VENTAKATA REDDY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 14 . SMT. TIPPA SUNDRAMMA D/O LATE K.R. VENTAKATA REDDY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 15 . SMT. VINODAMMA D/O LATE K.R. VENTAKATA REDDY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 16 . SMT. SUJATHAMMA D/O LATE K.R. VENTAKATA REDDY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R12 TO R16 ARE R/AT K.R. BEEDHI NEAR POLICE STATION SARJAPURA TOWN SARJAPURA POST, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT-562125. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. S.R. ANURADA, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SMT. SWATHI ASHOK, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. M.H. HANEEF, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SMT. K. SATYABAMA, ADVOCATE FOR R12; SRI. K.V.K. REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R16; V/O/D 31.08.2015, NOTICE TO R3 TO R11 D/W; R13 AND R14 ARE SERVED; R15 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) 8 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 04.07.2015 PASSED BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND INQUIRY OFFICER U/S 54 OF THE WAKF ACT 1955 IN CASE NO.ENQ/251/BNU/2011 THAT THE PETITIONER AND THE R- 12 TO 16 ARE IN ILLEGAL AND UNLAWFUL OCCUPATION AND DECLARED AS ENCROACHERS OF WAKF LAND BEARING SY.NO.558 MEASURING 5 ACRES 18 GUNTAS OF SARJAPURA, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK AND DELIVER VACANT POSSESSION OF THE SAID LAND TO THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A. W.P.No. 4874/2012 BETWEEN: 1 . ABDUL WAHAB SINCE DEAD, BY HIS LRS SMT. ASMUNNISSA W/O LATE ABDUL WAHAB AGED 60 YEARS 2 . SRI. INAYATHULLAH KHAN AGED 43 YEARS 3 . SRI. LIYAKATHULLA KHAN AGED 37 YEARS 4 . SRI. HIDAYATHULLA KHAN AGED 33 YEARS 5 . SRI. SADATHULLA KHAN AGED 25 YEARS 6 . SMT. SAJIDA KHATOON AGED 40 YEARS 7 . ZAHEDA KHATOON AGED 26 YEARS 9 PETITIONERS 2 TO 6 ARE CHILDREN OF LATE ABDUL WAHAB ALL ARE R/OF #1088, 35TH CROSS SMALL MOSQUE STREET FORT, SARJAPURA, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NAVEED AHMED, AND SRI. A. SAMAD KHAN, ADVOCATES) AND: 1 . THE LAND TRIBUNAL ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE SOUTH SUB-DIVISION K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE. 2 . THE STATE WAKF BOARD BANGALORE REP BY ITS SECRETARY 3 . 3(A) SRI K R VENKATAREDDY S/O KODIGE RAMAIAH SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS. K. V. KODANDARAMASWAMY REDDY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O LATE K. R. VENKATAREDDY 3(B) K. V. CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS S/O LATE K. R. VENKATAREDDY 3(C) K. V. THRIPURASUNDRAMMA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS D/O LATE K. R. VENKATAREDDY 10 3(D) K.V. VINODAMMA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, D/O LATE K. R. VENKATAREDDY 3(E) K.V.SUJATHAMMA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS S/O LATE K. R. VENKATAREDDY 3(F) MUNIYAMMA AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS W/O LATE K. R. VENKATAREDDY R-3(A) TO R-3(F) ARE R/AT K. R. BEEDHI, NEAR POLICE STATION SARJAPURA, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT. [CAUSE TITLE AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER] 4 . SRI. K.V. SOMASEKHARA REDDY S/O K.R. VENKATA REDDY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/OF K.R. BEEDHI, NEAR POLICE STATION SARJAPURA, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. VAHEEDA, AGA FOR R1; SMT. S.R. ANURADA, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SMT. SWATHI ASHOK, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. SHAIKH SAOUD, ADVOCATE FOR R3(1); SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI. SARAVANA, AND SRI. VIGNESHWARA .U, ADVOCATES FOR R3(2) AND R3(3); R3(4), R3(5) AND R3(6) ARE HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE R1 IN CASE NO. 11 INA.CR.54/1998-99, DATED 31ST OCTOBER, 2011 VIDE ANNEXURE- A AND ETC. THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 09.07.2025, THIS DAY ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED THEREIN, AS UNDER: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM C.A.V. ORDER W.P.No.26096/2012 is filed by the State WAKF Board assailing the order of the Land Tribunal dated 31.10.2011. WP.No.4874/2012 is filed by the legal representatives of original rival applicant/Abdul Wahab challenging the order dated 13.6.2011 of the Land Tribunal in rejecting their impleading application. WP.No.35473/2015 is filed by the legal representatives of Venkatareddy against the orders passed by the CEO of the WAKF Board dated 4.7.2015 under Section 54 of the WAKF Act, declaring them as encroachers. WP.No.19739/2017 is filed by legal representatives of Venkatareddy challenging the eviction order dated 4.12.2015 under Section 54 of the WAKF Act passed pursuant to the 12 order dated 4.7.2015 declaring them as encroachers, which is under challenge in W.P.No.35473/2015. 2. The facts leading to the case are as under: The petitioner/Board asserts that Ja Mia Maszid, Sarjapura, is the registered WAKF institution under the WAKF Act administered and supervised by the petitioner/Board. Petitioner/Board therefore, has filed the captioned petition alleging that the order passed by the Respondent No.1/Land Tribunal conferring occupancy rights on private respondents in respect of a WAKF property is not tenable. 3. The subject-matter of the captioned petition was subjected to an enquiry before the Land Tribunal pursuant to two claims made by one Abdul Wahab and Venkatareddy. Both the persons filed applications seeking occupancy rights under the provisions of the Mysore (Religious and Charitable Inams Abolition)Act, 1955. The Land Tribunal vide order 17.3.1971 conferred occupancy rights to Venkata Reddy, who is the ancestor of petitioners W.P.No.19739/2017. 13 4. Aggrieved by the order granting occupancy rights to Venkata Reddy, Abdul Wahab filed writ petition in W.P.15473/1993. This Court set aside the order of the Land Tribunal conferring occupancy rights on Venkata Reddy and the matter was remitted back to respondent No.1/Land Tribunal for fresh enquiry. 5. Post remand, respondent No.1/Land Tribunal undertook a fresh enquiry, fresh notices were issued to the rival claimants. After remand, Venkata Reddy led further evidence. While Khazi Abdul Wahab s/o. late Khazi Abdul Khuddus(petitioner in W.P.4874/2012) filed an impleading application and sought leave of the Court to come on record and claimed that he is the great grand son of late Khazi Azeezulla, who is the brother of late Khazi Badruddin to whom the Inam land was granted for khazi service. 6. Land Tribunal after hearing the legal heirs of original Khazi who was rendering service to Ja Mia Maszid and also the tenant namely, Venkata Reddy, and referring to the evidence on record opined that original Khazi Abdul Wahab 14 was receiving Wara (rent) from Venkata Reddy and he was also paying Wara to Khazi Abdul Wahab upto 1968, proceeded to hold that Venkata Reddy was a lawfully inducted tenant. The Tribunal on verification of records found that the petition land is a Khazi Inam Devadaya land and therefore, the Special Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 2.7.2007 has come to the conclusion that Khazi Inams squarely falls within the meaning of Miscellaneous Service Inam under Sub-Section 3 of Section 1 of Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 and therefore, the matter was remitted to the Land Tribunal for examining the tenancy rights of Venkata Reddy. Referring to the evidence on record, the Land Tribunal was of the view that Venkata Reddy has placed evidence to substantiate his tenancy rights and has also succeeded in establishing the relationship of landlord and tenant. Consequently, occupancy right is granted to Venkata Reddy, while the claim of one K.V. Somashekara Reddy, is rejected as well as the application filed by Abdul Wahab is also rejected. 15 7. W.P.No.26096/2012 is filed by the State WAKF Board assailing the occupancy rights granted in favour of Venkata Reddy. W.P.No.4874/2012 is filed by Abdul Wahab asserting rights through original Khazi Abdul Khuddus. W.P.37453/2015 is filed by the legal heirs of original tenant Venkata Reddy assailing the order dated 4.7.2015 passed by the CEO of WAKF Board under Section 54 of WAKF Act to hand over possession of the petition land on the premise that it is a WAKF property and W.P.19739/2017 is filed by the legal representatives of Venkata Reddy assailing the eviction order dated 4.7.2015. 8. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State WAKF Board reiterating the grounds has vehemently argued and contended that Central Act 29/1954 introduced WAKF Act declaring all existing wakf to be WAKF under the 1954 Act, while the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act came into force on 19.3.1955. She would point out that the Gazette Notification dated 8.2.1968 evidenced at Annexure-C, the petition land is notified as a WAKF property. 16 Referring to the application filed by Venkatareddy seeking grant of occupancy rights, she would submit that the records relied on by Venkata Reddy are from 1963 onwards and the land is shown to be Devadaya Inam. 9. Referring to the records, she would further point out that vide Government Order dated 7.2.1974, the petition land was transferred to WAKF board from Muzrai Department. While assailing the order impugned, her primary objection is that post remand by this Court in W.P.No.15473/1993, the Board was never notified and therefore, the Land Tribunal conferring occupancy rights in favour of Venkatareddy is non est and therefore, liable to be set aside. The second limb of argument canvassed by the learned Senior Counsel is on jurisdiction of the Land Tribunal to confer occupancy rights on an application filed under Mysuru (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955. She would point out that Tribunal blindly without application of mind has wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 3(1)(a) of Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954. She would point 17 out that the application was filed by the applicant under the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act and therefore, the Land Tribunal lacks inherent jurisdiction to hold an enquiry. 10. Pointing out the date on which the application was tendered by Venkatareddy which is evidenced at Annexure-D, she would contend that the cut off date was 31.12.1970 whereas the application is filed on 17.3.1971. She would further point out that even assuming that Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954, is applicable to the present case, she would contend that Venkatareddy even otherwise was not entitled for conferment of occupancy rights on an assumption that his name was reflected in RTC's/Pahani's since 1960. She would vehemently argue and contend that there is no evidence to show that Venkatareddy's name was reflected in the RTC. On the contrary, she submits that Venkatareddy's name was found in the RTC from 1969 onwards. Therefore, she would urge this Court to set aside the order of the Land Tribunal as there is no material to 18 substantiate that there was valid tenancy between the Board and the applicant/Venkatareddy. She would contend that there was sanction from Board to induct Venkatareddy on lease. She would further contend that applicant/Venkatareddy was not a bonafide tenant and to justify this contention, she would refer to the registered partition deed dated 13.10.2009 to indicate that applicant's family owned substantial properties and therefore, Venkatareddy could not have sought grant of occupancy rights under Section 5 of Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954, 11. Placing reliance on the judgment rendered in the case of The Karnataka State Board of Wakfs .vs. The State of Karnataka and others[W.P.No.5809/1993], she would contend that the property dedicated for the grace of god cannot be nullified by granting the same under local laws ignoring the provisions of WAKF Act. Referring to the judgment rendered in the case of Sayyed Ali and Others .vs. A.P. WAKF Board, Hyderabad and others1, she would 1 1998(2) SCC 642 19 contend that Apex Court has held that Deputy Commissioner under Inams Act has no jurisdiction to change the character of the land and the notification issued under Section 5(2) of WAKF Act is conclusive and can be modified only by a competitive civil Court. She would further point out that reliance on the judgment of the Madras High Court by the respondents in the case of Khajamian Wakf Estates etc. .vs. State of Madras and another2 is wholly misplaced and is not applicable to the present set of facts. 12. On these set of points, she would contend that Venkatareddy did not qualify to secure occupancy rights while petitioner in W.P.4874/2012 is also not entitled to lay a claim over the WAKF property since Khazi is not entitled for re-grant of WAKF properties notified under Section 5(2) of the WAKF Act. 13. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Venkatareddy has filed a detailed synopsis and has placed reliance on the Quit Rent Register extract to demonstrate that 2 1970(3) SCC 894 20 the petition land is a Khazi Service Inam and the quit rent also clearly shows that the lands are granted for Khazi service. The learned Senior Counsel referring to the judgment rendered in Shri Kudli Sringeri Maha Samsthanam vs State Of Karnataka, would contend that since Section 10 stood amended in terms of Amendment Act 26/1979, the land being a miscellaneous Inam land, Tribunal alone has jurisdiction. While countering the Board's contention that no tenancy/occupancy rights can be claimed under the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954, in respect of WAKF property, it is vehemently argued and contended that Mysore (Personal Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 came into force on 19.3.1955 and therefore, there is vesting of Inams property under Section 3. Therefore, he would vehemently argue and contend that once the lands are vested under Section 3, it is only subject to disposal or regrant or grant of occupancy in terms of the Act as an agrarian reform which holds the primacy and the notification dated 8.2.1968 is of no consequence and will not 21 circumvent the non-obstante provision under Section 3 of the Act. Referring to the judgment rendered in the case of D.H. Venkataramaiah .vs. State of Karnataka3, he would contend that the tenant under the Inam laws is entitled to seek conferment of occupancy rights. 14. Regarding violation of principles of natural justice as alleged by the petitioner, he would point out that the first order was passed on 31.7.1982 and this order was never challenged by the Board but by the heirs of a khazi namely Abdul Wahab in C.P.2891/1991 which was renumbered as WP.15473/1993. He would point out that the remand was not open and it was restricted to enable Abdul Wahab to lead evidence, if any. Post remand the applicant's are heard in the matter, fresh evidence is recorded and the order under challenge is passed. Be that as it may, records reveal that the State WAKF Board was even otherwise was served with notice and have not chosen to contest the proceedings. 3 2004(2) KLJ 312 22 15. On merits, learned Senior Counsel would point out that the tenancy is recorded under the registered agreement dated 29.4.1954 executed by Khazi Abdulla Saheeb. RTCs from 1963-64 are produced indicating that rents were received by the Khazi. To demonstrate possession over the petition land Venkatareddy also examined the adjacent owners. While concluding his arguments, he would point out that the eviction order which is subject matter of W.P.19739/2017 is untenable and is liable to be set aside by allowing the writ petition filed by Venkatareddy. 16. This Court has heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for petitioner and respondents. The records furnished along with the writ papers are meticulously examined. The synopsis filed by the respective parties are also carefully examined by this Court. 17. The following points would arise for consideration: "(i) Whether the WAKF Board's contention that no tenancy arises in the present case on hand in view of Gazette Notification dated 8.2.1968 is sustainable in view 23 of Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act which came into force on 19.3.1955? (ii) Whether the petition lands being Devadaya Service Inam Land confers jurisdiction on Land Tribunal to decide the tenancy rights of Venkatareddy in view of Deputy Commissioner's order dated 29.10.1980, who referred the matter to the Land Tribunal and this reference by the Deputy Commissioner is not questioned by anybody? (iii) Whether the State WAKF Board has jurisdiction to invoke Section 54 of the WAKF Act and pass eviction order against the legal heirs of Venkatareddy, who is conferred occupancy rights vide Order dated 31.10.2011? (iv) Whether the writ petition filed in W.P.No.35473/2015 challenging the proceedings survives for consideration in view of the final order for eviction passed which is the subject matter of W.P.No.19739/2017? (v) Whether distant relative of Sarjapur Babaruddin for rendering religious services to a particular institution can question and contest Venkat reddy’s tenany claim?" 24 FINDINGS ON POINTS (i) AND (ii): 18. In the present case, the land in question has been described as Devadaya or service inam land, which, as reflected in the revenue records, was originally granted in favour of one Sarjapur Babaruddin for rendering religious services to a particular institution. It is pertinent to note that such Devadaya or service inams, although connected with religious service, were often conferred upon individuals in their personal capacity for the performance of specified duties, and not in favour of the religious institution itself. The Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954, which came into effect on 19.03.1955, governs such grants and provides for the statutory vesting of such lands in the State Government. 19. Consequently, the nature of the original grant whether it was for personal service or religious service is no longer determinative of the title or the character of the land post-vesting. Instead, the decisive factors become the actual 25 possession and the manner of cultivation. The Quit Rent Register, a contemporaneous and credible revenue document having high evidentiary value, unequivocally records the land as a service inam. Furthermore, revenue entries corroborate the fact that the Khazi family was receiving wara (rent) from Venkatareddy, thereby supporting the claim of tenancy rather than any religious endowment. In this context, the assertion of the Karnataka Wakf Board that the land is Wakf property based solely on the 1968 Gazette Notification is untenable in law. Such a notification cannot override the statutory vesting effected under the 1954 Act, particularly when the original grant was made to an individual and not to a Wakf institution. 20. The legal position in this regard stands settled by the decision of this Court in Sri. K Ravichandran vs. Karnataka State board of Auqaf and Others in W.P No. 103351/2022 and connected matters, wherein it was held that inams granted to individuals for performing religious services albeit in connection with a mosque or dargah do not ipso facto render the land a wakf property unless the grant 26 was expressly made to the institution itself. Therefore, the inclusion of the subject property in the 1968 Gazette Notification cannot by itself confer the status of wakf property, nor can it nullify the effect of statutory vesting under the 1954 Act. 21. The Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.5591/2011 c/w W.A.No.379/2012 has substantially addressed the issue raised in the captioned petition. Therefore, this Court deems it fit to extract paragraphs 21 and 22 of the aforesaid judgment which reads as under: “21. The Inams Abolition Act was enacted by the state legislature in public interest to provide for the abolition of Religious Charitable inams in the Mysore area. It applies to religious inams including the Sringeri Jahgir and charitable inams. The explanation to subsection (3) of Section 1 provides/extends the meaning of 'Religious inam' or 'charitable inam'. It means a grant of a village, portion of a village or land entered in the register of imams, quit-rent register, alienation register, or any revenue account maintained by or under the authority of Government as Devadaya inam Dharmadaya inam, as the case may be. 'Inamdar' means a religious or charitable institution owning an inam. Section 3 of the Act provides for consequences of 27 vesting for an inam in the State. It provides when the notification under sub-section (4) of Section 14 in respect of any inam has been published in the Mysore Gazette, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any contract, grant or other instrument or in any other law for the time being in force, with effect on and from the date of vesting, and save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act. The consequences which follow are enumerated. Clause (b) provides all rights, title and interest vesting in the inamdar including those in all communal lands, cultivated lands, uncultivated lands, whether assessed or not, waste lands, pasture lands, forests, mines and minerals, quarries, rivers and streams, tanks and irrigation works, fisheries and ferries, shall cease and be vested absolutely in the State of Mysore, free from all encumbrances and persons who are entitled to be registered as occupants are given an opportunity to make an application and in the absence of any such claims from the occupants, the inamdar has been given a right to seek for regrant of the land for which there are no claims or claim compensation in respect of the lands which cannot be regranted. 22. From the material on record, it is clear both from the Sanad and also the entries in the quit-rent register it is clear the land in question is entered as an inam land. In para-7 of the petition, second petitioner claims to be an Inamdar of the land. The land in question is given as an inam to the second petitioner which is a Religious and Charitable Institution. Therefore, Section 3 of the Inams Abolition Act is attracted. When a notification was issued extending the provisions of the Act to the land in question, the said land 28 vested with the State Government free from all encumbrances. Neither the validity of the Act nor the notification extending the application of the Act to the land was challenged by the petitioners for nearly 50 long years. Even now, what is challenged is the notification and not the validity of the Act. The notification is issued in pursuance of the Act. If the Act is applicable the notification only extends the application of the Act. When the Act is not challenged, the notification cannot be challenged. Even otherwise, as is clear from the statutory provision the land in question being an inam land and the second petitioner being the inamdar, the said land vested with the Government free from all encumbrances. Therefore, the Inam Abolition Act is applicable to the land in question, and the lands vested with the Government free from all encumbrances.” 22. The Division Bench judgment in W.A. No.5591/2011 c/w W.A. No.379/2012 revolves around the interpretation and application of the Karnataka Certain Inam Abolition Act, 1977, particularly with regard to the vesting of inam lands with the State Government and the consequent extinguishment of all pre-existing rights. At paragraphs 21 and 22 of the judgment, the Court held that the Act was enacted in public interest to abolish religious and charitable inams, including those registered as Devadaya or Dharmadaya inams 29 in official revenue records. Once a notification is issued, all rights, title, and interest of the inamdar whether cultivated or uncultivated lands, forests, tanks, or other appurtenances stand extinguished and vest absolutely in the State, free from all encumbrances. The Division Bench found that the land in question was indeed inam land granted to a religious and charitable institution, as evidenced by the quit-rent register and the petitioners’ own admissions. The petitioners neither challenged the validity of the Act nor the vesting notification for nearly five decades. The Division Bench emphasized that the Act contains a non obstante clause, overriding all other laws, including the Wakf Act, 1954, and thereby nullifying any prior Gazette notifications designating such lands as waqf properties. The statutory vesting under the Act takes precedence, and any earlier religious or charitable status of the land, including waqf designations, stood extinguished upon such vesting. 23. In light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the contention of the Karnataka State 30 Wakf Board that the Gazette Notification of 1968 declaring the subject land as wakf property overrides the statutory vesting of the land under the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 is without merit and cannot be accepted. 24. Furthermore, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner remitting the matter to the Land Tribunal for determination, and the documentary evidence including the Quit Rent Register and Inam Register, clearly indicate that the land is a personal service inam. Consequently, the claim of the tenants falls squarely within the ambit of The Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954. In such circumstances, it is only the Land Tribunal which is legally competent to adjudicate the issue. 25. Venkata Reddy was conferred with occupancy rights by the Land Tribunal vide its order dated 31.07.1982. It is only the legal heirs of the Khazi family who questioned the said conferment by filing a Civil Petition, which was 31 subsequently converted into a Writ Petition and re-numbered as W.P. No.15473/1993. This Court, by its order passed therein, set aside the Tribunal’s order dated 31.07.1982 and remanded the matter back to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. The remand order passed by this Court would be relevant and the operative portion is extracted which has a significant bearing on the claim made by the WAKF board, which reads as under: " (i) the impugned order dated 31.7.1982 in No.LRF INM.41280-81 AND 378-80-81 passed by the Land Tribunal, respondent No.3, whereby it had rejected the claim of the petitioner and further granted occupancy right to respondent No.1 is quashed. (ii) the matter is remanded to the Land Tribunal, Anekal Taluk, Anekal, respondent No.3 herein with a direction to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to adduce additional evidence both oral and documentary, in view of that opportunity to the petitioner, let the Tribunal also afford reciprocal opportunity the respondent No.1 too to adduce additional evidence, if any, from his side. (iii) the Land Tribunal is further directed to pass considered order thereon by taking into consideration the evidence that was led in by both sides earlier to the appeal and further by taking into account the additional evidence, if 32 any, by the parties to be adduced before it in the future. The Land Tribunal shall hold that limited enquiry by issuing notices to all the parties concerned by following Rule 17 of the Land Reforms Rules in strict compliance." (emphasis supplied by me) 26. A careful reading of the extracted portion of the remand order passed by this Court reveals that it was a limited remand, confined strictly to examining the specific issues raised by the Khazi family, who claimed to be the inamdars. It is also crucial to note that only the holder of the service inam land namely Abdul Wahab who was the petitioner was permitted to lead evidence. Reciprocally, it is only the tenant namely, K.R. Venkatareddy was permitted to adduce additional evidence from his side. The Board was arrayed as respondent No.2. The Board did not sought leave of the Court to lead evidence, more particularly, when Board had not challenged the Land Tribunal's order dated 31.7.1982. In the light of these significant details, the contention that Board was not heard post remand has no merit and therefore, challenge to the order of the Land Tribunal post remand on the ground that it violates the principles of natural justice is untenable. 33 27. This is a crucial distinction because a limited remand restricts the scope of rehearing by the Tribunal and bars any third party from raising new grounds or contesting issues that fall outside the remand’s purview. Therefore, the contention of the Wakf Board that the land was a notified wakf property and that the order dated 13.06.2011 is rendered invalid due to such notification is wholly untenable. The Board was not a party to the earlier proceedings and, more importantly, had no locus to reopen or contest the matter afresh once the remand was confined to adjudicating the limited objections raised by the Khazi family. If the Board was aggrieved by the conferment of occupancy rights in favour of Venkata Reddy, it ought to have independently challenged the Land Tribunal’s order dated 31.07.1982 and sought appropriate relief, which it failed to do. In the absence of such a challenge, and given the limited scope of the remand, the Board cannot now assert any fresh rights or objections. 28. The principle of limited remand has been consistently upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this 34 Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in numerous judgment has reiterated that when a matter is remanded for a specific purpose, the lower forum cannot go beyond the scope of remand. Similarly, this Court has held that when a remand is limited, the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is confined to the scope defined by the remanding Court and cannot be enlarged to entertain new claims or contentions. 29. Accordingly, in the present case, the remand having been limited and the Wakf Board not having challenged the original order, the Board had no legal standing to participate in or reopen the remanded proceedings. Its subsequent objections are beyond the scope of the remand and are therefore liable to be rejected. Accordingly, Point No. (i) is answered in the negative and point No. (ii) is answered in the affirmative. FINDING ON POINT NO.(iii): 30. In view of the findings recorded on Points 1 and 2, this Court has come to the conclusion that Venkatareddy was 35 a lawfully inducted tenant in respect of the land in question. Upon the abolition of personal inams by virtue of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954, the subject land stood vested with the State. Therefore, even if the 1968 Gazette Notification included the said land as wakf property, such a notification is merely evidentiary in nature and cannot override the statutory consequence of vesting under the 1954 Act. 31. Consequently, the mere inclusion of the land in the Gazette Notification as wakf property does not divest the Land Tribunal of its jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate an application asserting tenancy rights under the 1954 Act. If such an application is filed within the prescribed time, the claimant is entitled to seek registration as an occupant, subject to due enquiry. The tenancy rights that were lawfully created prior to the abolition of the inam cannot be extinguished merely on account of the Gazette Notification. Therefore, the Karnataka State Wakf Board lacks the jurisdiction to invoke Section 54 of the Wakf Act to initiate 36 eviction proceedings against the legal representatives of Venkatareddy by treating them as trespassers. Accordingly, Point No.(iii) is answered in the negative. FINDING ON POINT NO.(iv): 32. Having regard to the conclusion arrived at in Point No.(iii) that the eviction order passed by the Wakf Board is legally unsustainable, the show cause notice issued by the Board which is impugned in W.P. No.35473/2015 also cannot survive. Since the very foundation of the eviction proceedings is found to be without jurisdiction and contrary to law, all consequential actions, including the show cause notice, are rendered invalid. Accordingly, Point No.(iv) is also answered in the negative and the impugned show-cause notice is liable to be quashed. 37 FINDING ON POINT No.(v) 33. The Quit Rent Register, being a contemporaneous and authoritative revenue record maintained in the regular course of official duties, carries significant evidentiary value under law. A perusal of the said register unequivocally discloses that the land in question is classified as a service inam, thereby establishing the nature of the grant as one made in lieu of services rendered. This classification is not a mere clerical entry but is a material piece of evidence that lends credence to the contention that the land was originally granted to the Khazi family for performing religious or administrative functions. 34. In addition to the Quit Rent Register, the revenue records further reinforce this position by recording that Venkatareddy was paying 'wara' (rent) to the Khazi family. These entries are consistent with and corroborative of the plea that the land was being enjoyed by Venkatareddy as a tenant under the Khazi family, who continued to be in receipt of rent 38 in recognition of their superior interest in the land. Such sustained and documented revenue arrangements support the claim of tenancy in favour of Venkatareddy and his successors. 35. In light of the above, the claim made in W.P. No.4874/2012 by Abdul Wahab, who seeks to assert rights over the land through the original Khazi Abdul Khuddus, stands on untenable footing. The documentary evidence on record not only negates the claim of absolute ownership by the petitioner but also establishes the status of the Khazi family as holders of service inam, with the actual possession and enjoyment of the land being vested in the tenant. Accordingly point no.(v) is answered in the Negative. 36. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) W.P.35473/2015 filed by the legal heirs of original tenant Venkatareddy against the order dated 4.7.2015 passed by the Chief Executive Officer of WAKF Board vide Annexure-"A" is hereby allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 4.7.2015 is quashed and set aside. 39 (ii) W.P.No.19739/2017 filed by the legal representatives of original tenant Venkatareddy challenging the eviction order dated 4.12.2015 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner as per Annexure- "A" is allowed. The eviction order dated 4.12.2015 is hereby quashed. Consequently, the concerned authorities are directed to restore the entries in the names of the petitioners. (iii) W.P.No.26096/2012 filed by the WAKF Board assailing the order of the Land Tribunal dated 31.10.2011 conferring occupancy rights on private respondents in respect of a WAKF property is hereby dismissed. (iv) W.P.4874/2012 filed by the legal representatives of original rival applicant/Abdul Wahab challenging the order dated 13.6.2011 of the Land Tribunal in rejecting their impleading application also stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB