- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47705 CRP No. 32 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 32 OF 2023 (WAKF) BETWEEN: 1. MR. MOHAMMED SALAM SAB S/O MR.MOHAMMED YUSUF SAB AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC: JAMATH MEMBER R/O PALANAJOGAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203. 2. MR.ASIFULLA S/O MR.MOHAMMED IBRAHIM AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: JAMATH MEMBER, R/O KANTANAKUNTE, TIPPUNAGAR, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. V B SIDDARAMAIAH.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF AUQAF NO.6, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU-560 052. 2. THE WAKF OFFICER DISTRICT WAKF ADVISORY COMMITTEE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47705 CRP No. 32 of 2023 OFFICE AT NO.4-C, 2ND FLOOR, HAZRATH HAMEED SHAH AND HAZ MUHNIB SHAH COMPLEX, CUBBONPET, BENGALURU-560 002. 3. THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE THE HAZRATH SHAH HUSSAIN SHAH MAKAN AND MASJID PALANAJOGAHALLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203 REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER, MR.PYARE JAN. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. USMAN P., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI.P.S.MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 - ABSENT- SRI.NAVEED ADMED, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS CRP FILED UNDER SECTION 83(9) OF THE WAKF ACT,1995, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03.01.2023 PASSED ON IA.NO.1 IN APPLICATION NO.78/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-14) BENGALURU, C/C PRESIDING OFFICER KARNATAKA WAKF TRIBUNAL BANGALORE DN. BANGALORE, REJECTING THE I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULES 1 AND 2 U/S 83 OF WAQF ACT R/W/S 151 OF CPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47705 CRP No. 32 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.V.B.Siddaramaiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Sri.Usman.P., learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 and Sri.Naveed Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.3. Sri.P.S.Malipatil, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 remained absent. 2. Applicants in Application No.78 of 2022 before the Karnataka WAQF Tribunal, Bengaluru is the revision petitioner assailing the order dated 03.01.2023 in this revision petition. 3. Facts of the case, which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: An application came to be filed under Section 83(2) of the WAKF Act, 1995 by the applicants with the following prayer: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47705 CRP No. 32 of 2023 i) To set aside the Order No.KSBA/ADM/ CMC/BNR/07/2022-23, dated 21.07.2022 and Order No.KSBA/ADM/ CMC/ BNR/ 07/2022-23 dated 15.11.2022 issued by the Respondent No.1 vide Annexures-K & L. ii) To direct the Respondent No.1 to approve the list of 11 members of the managing committee of Hazrath Hussain Shah Makan & Dargah & Masjid, Palanajogahalli, Doddaballapur Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, which was sent by the Respondent No.2 vide the letter dted 14.07.2022 and letter dated 30.08.2022 submitted by the Respondent No.2. 4. An application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and Rule 2 r/w Section 151 of CPC came to be filed vide I.A.No.1 with the following prayer to issue interim order of stay, staying the order No.KSBA/ADM/CMC/BNR/07/2022- 23, dated 21.07.2022 and order No.KSBA/ADM/CMC/BNR/ 07/2022-23 dated 15.11.2022 issued by the first respondent. 5. The application was supported by affidavit of Mr.Asifulla, one of the applicants. In the affidavit, it is stated that WAKF Board constituted Managing Committee on 16.06.2019 for constitution of 11 members committee - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47705 CRP No. 32 of 2023 for a period of 3 years and Jamath members and previous managing committee has filed representation to WAKF Board for constitution of new managing committee and till the consideration of the said representation, the notification issued by the first respondent needs to be stayed. The said application was opposed by the contesting respondent by filing detailed written objections. 6. The learned Trial Judge heard the matter in detail and dismissed the application filed by the revision petitioners, interalia, holding in paragraph Nos.10 to 15 as under: "10) The constituting of Managing Committee of order dated 16.06.2019, Applicant has produced following documents Copy of Adhar Card, Relevant Portion of Gazette at Annexure B, Copy of order dated 06.07.2015 and 16.06.2019 is at Annexure C and D, Copy of Representations dated 09.09.2022, 12.09.2022 and 21.04.2022 is at Annexure E, F and G respectively. Public Notice dated 22.04.2022, letter dated 30.08.2022, Copy of order dated 21.07.2022 and 15.11.2022. List is forwarded to Board for its approval. Therefore, The Impugned Order of Respondent No.1 are legal, unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside by this application. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47705 CRP No. 32 of 2023 11) Respondent No.1 and 2 are represented by Sri. P. Usman Advocate and Respondent No.3 is by Naveed Ahmed advocate have filed their detailed objection opposing the stay of the Impugned Order. 12) In the Course of argument learned course for applicant Sri.Omkar.N., advocate submitted that the Impugned Orders are illegal and is not sustainable in law. The Applicants have assailed order dated 21.07.2021 and 15.11.2022. Respondent No.1 cannot pass the Impugned Orders without considering the list for approval of the applicant committee. The applicant committee has followed the procedure as per the Scheme of Administration and List has to be approved in stead the Impugned Order are passed. Therefore, he requested to Stay the Impugned Order. 13) Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 and 2 submitted that the applicant committee is adhoc committee and having no choice to seek the approval of the list by Respondent No.1 Board. Board has proceeded to pass impugned Order, taking into consideration of the aspects of the matter and for best interested of the Waqf Institution. The Caretaker is appointed, further learned counsel submitted that In view of Rule 54(5) of Waqf the Waqf Officer would be placed in charge automatically and no formal order is required for the same. In this connection he relied on the citation of W.A.No.100400 of 2022 (GM-Wakf) Karnataka State Board of Auqaf Vs Anjuman E Islam. Therefore he requested to reject the stay application. 14) Similarly, Respondent No.3 advocate has also submitted there is no merit in seeking stay of Impugned Orders. The adhoc committee cannot proceed when Impugned Orders are passed. There are many objections from the General body against - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47705 CRP No. 32 of 2023 this and Impugned Orders cannot be stayed. Therefore, he requested to reject the application. 15) Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, I have perused the entire material placed by the applicant and respondent on record. admittedly, the term of applicant committee is completed on 15.06.2022. It is no doubt the list is sent through Waqf Officer for constituting the same committee for the management of Waqf Institution. The Respondent No.1 has not approved the list forwarded in constituting the Managing Committee instead of Impugned Orders are passed. Annexure K is constituting the Managing Committee of Dargah. There is an order, Waqf Officer has to take charge as caretaker of Waqf Institution Under Section 54(5) of Waqf Rules 2017. The framing of Scheme of Administration (rule 48) and to hold the election to constitute the Managing Committee accordingly. Secondly the advisory committee is constituting 11 members to assist the caretaker for the management of Hazrath Hussain Shah Makan and Masjid after due deliberation in the Board meeting placed before the Respondents No.1 Board in its 33rd meeting held on 05.11.2022. Impugned Order came to be passed. The applicant has produced copy of Adhar Card of the applicant which is not in dispute. Gazette Notification Annexure B in respect of Waqf Institution is also not in dispute. Hazrath Hussain Shah Makan is not in dispute and it is admitted fact. All these documents relied by applicant to stay the Impugned Order is prima-facia not sufficient to hold the Impugned Orders passed by respondent No.1 Board are illegal, capricious. The material placed by Applicant on record is not sufficient to show that the applicants have made out prima-facia case against Respondent and balance of convenience lies in favour of applicant to stay the ios annexure K and L respectively. If the stay is granted more hardship and irreparable loss and injury will be caused to respondents rather - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47705 CRP No. 32 of 2023 than the Plaintiff. In view of the decision reported in W.A.No.100400 of 2022 there is no material on record to show that prima facia Impugned Orders are perverse and illegal. Thus, it cannot be said that Waqf Board has no authority to pass the Impugned Orders. Applicants are not entitled for relief of interim stay as sought. Therefore, I answer Point No.1 to 3 in the negative. 7. Being aggrieved by the same, applicants are before this Court. 8. Sri.V.B.Siddaramaiah, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that until consideration of the representation and application on merits, if the orders passed by the first respondent is implemented, then, the very application would become infructuous and said aspect of the matter was not noticed by the learned Trial Judge while dismissing the application I.A.No.1 seeking stay of notifications resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for admitting the revision petition for further consideration. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47705 CRP No. 32 of 2023 9. Per contra, Sri.Usman.P. and Sri.Naveed Ahmed, learned counsels appearing for the respondents would support the impugned order by contending that the prayer vide I.A.No.1, if granted, would be practically allowing the very application itself filed under Section 83(2) of the WAKF Act and therefore, sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 10. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 11. On such perusal of the material on record, this Court is satisfied that the rejection of the application is just and proper for the reasons assigned by the learned Trial Judge culled out supra. 12. Further, the term itself has come to an end by efflux of three years and the present application before the WAKF Tribunal itself has rendered infructuous. As such, following: - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47705 CRP No. 32 of 2023 ORDER Revision petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE DH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4