- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14833 WP No. 100089 of 2017 C/W WP No. 100090 of 2017 WP No. 100091 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO.100089 OF 2017 (GM-WAKF) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.100090 OF 2017 (GM-WAKF) WRIT PETITION NO.100091 OF 2017 (GM-WAKF) IN WP NO. 100089/2017: BETWEEN: HAYATSAB, S/O MEHABOOBSAB @ BABUSAB GARAG, AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. MANAKILLA, DHARWAD. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KARNATAKA STATE WAQF BOARD, #6, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGLAURU. 2. THE DISTRICT WAQF OFFICE, MINI VIDHNA SOUDHA, DHARWAD. 3. MOTI MASJID BADI JAMAT, MANKILLA, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. MUHAMMED ALI, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO VINAYAKA B V Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14833 WP No. 100089 of 2017 C/W WP No. 100090 of 2017 WP No. 100091 of 2017 ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING OF THE ORDER DATED 07.12.2016 IN KWT/DHD/SR/OS NO.21/2016 PASSED BY THE VTH ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND KARNATAKA WAKF TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-T AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW I.A.NO.I DATED 24.10.2016 WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-R & ETC. IN WP NO. 100090/2017: BETWEEN: ALEEMUDDIN, S/O HAJARATSAB ARANI, AGE. 54 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. H.NO.14, MANAKILLA, DHARWAD. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KARNATAKA STATE WAQF BOARD, #6, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU. 2. THE DISTRICT WAQF OFFICE, MINI VIDHNA SOUDHA, DHARWAD. 3. MOTI MASJID BADI JAMAT, MANKILLA, DHARWAD. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. MUHAMMED ALI, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING OF THE ORDER DATED 07/12/2016 IN KWT/DHD/SR/OS.NO.22/2016 PASSED BY THE VTH ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND KARNATAKA WAKF TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14833 WP No. 100089 of 2017 C/W WP No. 100090 of 2017 WP No. 100091 of 2017 WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-L AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW I.A.NO.I DATED 24/10/2016 WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-H & ETC. IN WP NO. 100091/2017: BETWEEN: SHAFIAHMED, S/O HAJARTSAB ARANI, AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. H.NO.14, MANAKILLA, DHARWAD. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KARNATAKA STATE WAQF BOARD, #6, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGLAURU. 2. THE DISTRICT WAQF OFFICE, MINI VIDHNA SOUDHA, DHARWAD. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. MUHAMMED ALI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING OF THE ORDER DATED 07/12/2016 IN KWT/DHD/SR/OS.NO.23/2016 PASSED BY THE VTH ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND KARNATAKA WAKF TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-K AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW I.A.NO.I DATED 24/10/2016 WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G & ETC. THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14833 WP No. 100089 of 2017 C/W WP No. 100090 of 2017 WP No. 100091 of 2017 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT) In all the above three writ petitions, common questions arise in respect of three separate premises. Hence, all the above three petitions are taken up together and disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioner in W.P. No.100089/2017 claiming to be a permanent lessee is before this Court questioning the order dated 07.12.2016 passed in KWT/DHD/SR/OS No.21/2016 by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge and Karnataka Wakf Tribunal, Belagavi (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), wherein the petitioner’s I.A. No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking stay of further proceedings Case Nos.PP/96/DHD/2014, No.PP/97/DHD/2014 and No.PP/98/DHD/2014 was rejected. 3. The petitioner in W.P. No.100090/2017 claiming to be a permanent lessee is before this Court questioning the order dated 07.12.2016 passed in KWT/DHD/SR/OS No.22/2016 passed by the Wakf Tribunal, Belagavi, wherein the petitioner’s I.A. No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14833 WP No. 100089 of 2017 C/W WP No. 100090 of 2017 WP No. 100091 of 2017 the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking stay of further proceedings Case No.PP/101/DHD/2014 was rejected. 4. The petitioner in W.P. No.100091/2017 claiming to be a permanent lessee is before this Court questioning the order dated 07.12.2016 passed in KWT/DHD/SR/OS No.23/2016 passed by the Wakf Tribunal, Belagavi, wherein the petitioner’s I.A. No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking stay of further proceedings Case No.PP/100/DHD/2014 was rejected. 5. Heard Sri. Mallikarjunswamy B.Hiremath, learned counsel for the petitioner in all the three petitions, and Sri B.Muhammed Ali, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 3. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would point out that this Court by, interim order dated 08.02.2017 stayed eviction of the petitioner initially for a period of eight weeks which was continued from time to time. Further, it is stated that interim order is operating for the last more than eight years in favour of the petitioner. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14833 WP No. 100089 of 2017 C/W WP No. 100090 of 2017 WP No. 100091 of 2017 7. Learned counsel, Sri. Mallikarjunswamy B.Hiremath would invite attention of this Court to the impugned order dated 07.12.2016 and submit that, while deciding the interlocutory application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, the Wakf Tribunal committed a grave error in giving a finding that the suit itself is not maintainable. Learned counsel would submit that the Wakf Tribunal ought to have restricted its finding as to whether the petitioner would be entitled to interim prayer or not. The Tribunal was not justified in giving a finding that the suit itself is not maintainable, and it could have given such a finding while deciding maintainability or at the time of disposal of the suit. Thus, he submits that such a finding would affect adversely while deciding the main suit. Hence, he prays for setting aside the said finding. 8. Per contra, Sri. B. Muhammed Ali, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 3, would submit that rightly the Wakf Tribunal observed that the suit is not maintainable since declaration is sought by the petitioner without consequential relief. Thus, he would pray for dismissal of the writ petitions. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14833 WP No. 100089 of 2017 C/W WP No. 100090 of 2017 WP No. 100091 of 2017 9. Under the impugned order dated 07.12.2016, in all the writ petitions, the Wakf Tribunal was considering an interlocutory application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC wherein stay of further proceedings in Case No.PP/96/DHD/2014, Case No.PP/97/DHD/2014 Case No.PP/98/DHD/2014, Case No.PP/101/DHD/2014, and Case No.PP/100/DHD/2014 initiated under the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974, was sought. The Wakf Tribunal, while deciding the application for interim prayer to protect possession of the petitioner, could not have decided the maintainability of the suit itself. The Wakf Tribunal has given a categorical finding that, in the absence of consequential relief being sought in a suit for declaration, the suit would not be maintainable, which finding is not proper and correct. The Wakf Tribunal ought to have determined as to whether the petitioner would be entitled for interim protection with regard to their possession. If the respondents were to file an application with regard to maintainability, then the Wakf Tribunal could have decided the material issue. In the absence of raising an issue with regard to maintainability, the Tribunal is not justified in deciding the maintainability of the suit while - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14833 WP No. 100089 of 2017 C/W WP No. 100090 of 2017 WP No. 100091 of 2017 deciding an application seeking interim protection. In fact, Sri. Mallikarjunswamy B.Hiremath, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the finding is contrary to the main prayer and submits that the plaint includes the consequential prayer. 10. Be that as it may, I am of the opinion that since interim protection, by way of an interim order dated 08.02.2017, not to evict the petitioner granted by this Court is continued till this day, the same interim order could be continued with a direction to the Wakf Tribunal to dispose of the pending suits expeditiously. However, the above observations with regard to maintainability would not bar the Wakf Tribunal from determining the issue of maintainability if an application is filed by the other side or at the time of disposal of the suits. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The interim order dated 08.02.2017 passed in W.P. Nos.100089/2017, 100090/2017 and 100091/2017 are continued till the disposal of the suits bearing Nos.KWT/DHD/SR/OS No.21/2016, KWT/DHD/SR/OS No.22/2016, and - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14833 WP No. 100089 of 2017 C/W WP No. 100090 of 2017 WP No. 100091 of 2017 KWT/DHD/SR/OS No.23/2016 pending on the file of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge and Karnataka Wakf Tribunal, Belagavi. (ii) The finding of the Tribunal with regard to maintainability is set aside with liberty to decide the same independently or at the time of disposal of the suit. (iii) The Trial Court shall dispose of the pending suits as expeditiously as possible within nine months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (iv) Writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE KMS, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 15