In a significant judgment, the Karnataka High Court has set aside an order that had erroneously included the name of the Wakf Board in revenue records without due process. The judgment, delivered by Justice Suraj Govindaraj, underscores the necessity for proper inquiry before making such changes, particularly when private ownership is involved.
Case Background:
The case revolves around land in Survey No. 179/5, measuring 39 guntas, located in Karadkal village, Lingasugur Taluk, Raichur District. The petitioner, Smt. Chennamma, represented by Advocate Ravi B. Patil, claimed ownership of the land, having acquired it through a registered sale deed dated October 5, 2012. The land had a history of ownership changes, with the petitioner’s name being duly recorded in the revenue records.
However, in 2018-2019, the Tahsildar, acting on directives from the Deputy Commissioner and based on a notification issued by the Regional Commissioner, inserted the name of the District Wakf Officer in the revenue records, indicating the land as Wakf property. The petitioner challenged this insertion, arguing that it was done without proper inquiry and without giving her an opportunity to be heard.
Legal Issues Involved:
The core issue before the court was whether the entry of the Wakf Board’s name in the revenue records could be made without conducting a due inquiry into the property’s status as Wakf land. Additionally, the court examined whether the petitioner was required to approach the Wakf Tribunal under Section 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995, to resolve this dispute.
Court’s Observations and Decision:
Justice Suraj Govindaraj observed that the directives from the Regional Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner were misconstrued by the Tahsildar. The notification from the Regional Commissioner explicitly required an inquiry to determine whether the property was indeed Wakf property before any changes were made in the revenue records. The Tahsildar, however, bypassed this crucial step and unilaterally inserted the Wakf Board’s name without notice to the petitioner.
The court emphasized that simply inserting the Wakf Board’s name in the revenue records does not establish the property as Wakf land. If there is a dispute regarding the title, the Wakf Board must establish its claim in a proper legal forum, rather than relying on administrative entries.
The court concluded that Section 83 of the Wakf Act, which mandates approaching the Wakf Tribunal for disputes, was not applicable in this scenario. The case involved a claim by the Wakf Board against a private party, and therefore, the burden of proof lay with the Wakf Board to establish its title.
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the impugned order dated February 14, 2022 (No. SAM/KKAM/DEVASTAN/12/2021-22), and directed the Tahsildar to delete the entry of the Wakf Board from the revenue records and reinstate the petitioner’s name. However, the court also granted liberty to the authorities to conduct a proper inquiry following the correct legal procedures.
Also Read
Case Details:
– Case Number: Writ Petition No. 202162 of 2022 (KLR-RR/SUR)
– Bench: Justice Suraj Govindaraj
– Petitioner: Smt. Chennamma, represented by Advocate Ravi B. Patil
– Respondents: The Regional Commissioner, Kalaburagi Region; The Deputy Commissioner, Raichur; The Assistant Commissioner, Lingasugur; The Tahsildar, Manvi; The District Wakf Officer, Raichur, represented by Advocate P.S. Malipatil
