- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010344892018 NC: 2026:KHC:50700 CRP No. 96 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 96 OF 2018 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. ZAHEERUNNISA W/O LATE KHAJI ABDUL BASITH SINCE DEAD BY LRS. SADATUNNISA @MAMTAZ BEGUM, W/O SYED KALEEMULLA, D/O LATE KHAZI ABDUL BASITH SINCE DEAD BY LRS SYED KALEEMULLA, S/O SYED UMER AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. 2. SMT K FATHIMA W/O NIZAM BASHA D/O SYED KALEEMULLA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS 3. SMT PRAVEEN W/O FAIROZ D/O SYED KALEEMULLA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS 4. SRI SYED ARIFULLA @ FAROOQ S/O SYED KALEEMULLA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010344892018 NC: 2026:KHC:50700 CRP No. 96 of 2018 5. SMT ZAHEEDA D/O SYED KALEEMULLA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS 6. SMT RIZWANA D/O SYED KALEEMULLA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT NO.7/6-2 TEACHERS COLONY, 4TH CROSS BAGALUR ROAD, HOSUR KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT - 635 203 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NAVEED AHMED, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF WAKFS NO 6 CUNNINGAM ROAD , BANGALORE - 560 052 REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN 2. JUMMA MASJID MANAGING COMMITTEE MANAGING COMMITTEE ANEKAL, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SABAHATH SULTANA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. D.P. SHIVAPRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRP FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.02.2013 PASSED IN OS.NO.11/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, HOLDING CONCURRENT CHARGE OF PRESIDING - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010344892018 NC: 2026:KHC:50700 CRP No. 96 of 2018 OFFICER, KARNATAKA WAKF TRIBUNAL BENGALURU DIVISION, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER The present CRP is filed aggrieved by the orders passed in OS.No.11/2004 dated 01.02.2013 on the file of the learned Karnataka Wakf Tribunal, Bangalore Division, Bangalore. 2. The petitioner herein has originally filed a suit for declaration and consequential relief before the City Civil Court, Bangalore in OS.No.243/1996, which was renumbered as OS.No.11/2004 before Karnataka Wakf Tribunal, Bangalore. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property is a Khazi Inamthi Land. The land was being enjoyed by the ancestors of the plaintiff's husband as Khazai inam land. The husband of the plaintiff was the Khazi. He was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property till his death. He died on 11.10.1980. After his death, the plaintiff continued - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010344892018 NC: 2026:KHC:50700 CRP No. 96 of 2018 to possess and enjoy the property. She hired the services of the labour for cultivation. As the plaintiff was not keeping well, the land was left fallow and is not under cultivation. The revenue records were in the name of the plaintiff's husband during his lifetime. He was also getting the land cultivated through labour. It is stated that one Sri.Krishnappa, taking advantage of the entry made in his name in the cultivator's column, filed an application before the Land Reforms Tribunal seeking occupancy rights, which was dismissed. It is stated that Karnataka Board of Wakfs, Bangalore issued a notice to the plaintiff’s husband for removal from the post of Khazi and for delivery of possession of the property. The defendants have no right, title, or possession of the property. The written statement was filed stating that the Wakfs claimed the property to be the property of the Wakf as per the notification; then an amendment was sought seeking additional prayer to quash the corrigendum dated 08.05.1968, which should be the Mysore State Board of Wakfs, published in the official Gazette of Karnataka on 18.10.1984. The court has framed the issues and has observed that Muslim law does not recognize hereditary - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010344892018 NC: 2026:KHC:50700 CRP No. 96 of 2018 priestly class. The office of the Khaji or Mulla is not hereditary. The kazi/mulla who render religious services to the committee is only a manager of the property, and he is not entitled to be conferred with ownership rights in respect of property declared as Wakf. Where the property is declared as Wakf by Gazette notification, not being challenged within one year from the date of its issue, has become final. No suit shall be entertained after expiry of one year from the date of publication of list of Wakf under Section 5(8) of the Wakf Act, 1995. The list of Wakfs published in the official Gazette is final and conclusive, unless it is challenged by way of suit within the stipulated period of one year. The Court has observed that, under Section 6 of the Wakf Act 1995, if any question arises as to whether particular property specified in the list of Wakf property is Wakf property, the person interested in claiming the property has to approach the Tribunal by way of a suit. But such suit has to be filed within one year from the date of publication of the list of Wakfs. It is further observed that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief as claimed. - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010344892018 NC: 2026:KHC:50700 CRP No. 96 of 2018 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that there was a grant in favor of the husband of the plaintiff dated 23.06.1979 and ever since they have been in continuous possession of the property. The Court has failed to appreciate the grant that is given in favor of the husband of the plaintiff. It is submitted that before notifying the property as a Wakf property, the respondents have to follow the procedure known to law. It is submitted that no such procedure is formed and from the date of grant, they have been in continuous possession of the property. All these aspects were not appreciated by the Court. It is submitted that the order may be set aside and the matter may be remanded back to the Court, permitting the petitioner to raise all these issues. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Wakf submits that the Court has rightly held that when a notification was issued as long as back in the year 1966 notifying these properties as Wakf properties, no suit within the stipulated period was filed and the same is not maintainable. The petitioner is mentioning about the grant. Except for a passing averment in the plaint, the said document was never placed - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010344892018 NC: 2026:KHC:50700 CRP No. 96 of 2018 before the Court, never argued, and an issue was never framed by the Court. In those circumstances, the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise the said ground. It is submitted that the Court has rightly considered and passed the orders. Hence, no interference is called for. 5. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the material on record. 6. The suit is filed in the year 1996 seeking declaration before the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Bangalore, that plaintiff is the owner of the property. Thereafter, the matter was transferred to the Wakf Tribunal in the year 2004. Originally, the suit was filed for declaration. Thereafter, the plaintiff has sought the relief that the Gazette notification issued by the Wakf stating that those properties are Wakf properties is not binding on the plaintiff. As far as that issue is concerned, the Court has given a categorical finding that if the properties are notified as long as back in the year 1968, as per Section 6 of the Wakf Act, it has to be questioned within one year from the date of Gazette notification, and admittedly, this claim is filed in the year 1996. Hence, it is barred by limitation, - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010344892018 NC: 2026:KHC:50700 CRP No. 96 of 2018 and the same cannot be considered. Then, coming to the grant, which the petitioner is referring to, a suit that was filed in the year 1996, the plaintiff, who has not chosen to place a document before the Court for the best reasons known to the plaintiff, and when the judgment was passed on 01.02.2013, in the year 2026 seeking remand on the ground is not permissible, and this stage, this Court is not inclined to go into this aspect. e were several opportunities for the petitioner before the Trial Court, and the suit has been pending from 1996 to 2013. He has not taken any steps. In those circumstances, the question of remanding the matter does not arise. In the light of Section 6 of the Wakf Act, the Court had rightly dismissed the suit, and there is no ground to interfere. In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, the CRP is dismissed. ii. All Pending IAs in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE BH : List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4