Full Judgment
- 1 - NC:
2023. KHC-K:9362 WP No.207380 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, R KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE20H DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION No.207380 OF2017(GM-WAKF) [ B[[ ETWEEN:
1. SHARANAPPA S/O NAGAPPA KUDARI, AGE:
73. YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 2. BASAVARAJ S/O NAGAPPA KUDARI, AGE:
70. YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 3. CHANDRAKANT S/O NAGAPPA KUDARI, AGE:
68. YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 4. ANNAPPA S/O NAGAPPA KUDARI, AGE:
58. YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 5. VIJAYAKUMAR S/O HANAMATH RAI KUDARI, AGE:
40. YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, ALL ARE R/O AFZALPUR, TQ: AFZALPUR, DIST: KALABURAGI-585 301. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S. S. HALALLI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE GOVT. OF KARNATAKA, DEPT. OF REVENUE, VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001. REPT. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KALABURAGI DISTRICT, KALABURAGI-585 104.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KALABURAGI DIVISION, - 2 - NC:
2023. KHC-K:9362 WP No.207380 of 2017 KALABURAGI-585 104.
4. THE TAHASILDAR, AFZALPURA TALUKA, AFZALPUR-585 301.
5. THE KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF WAKF, DARUL AWKAF, NO.6, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU-560 052, REPT. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
6. THE KAZAT (SUNNI) AFZALPUR, DIST: KALABURAGI-585 301, REPT. BY ITS MANAGER/MUTAVALLI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G. B. YADAV, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. P. S. MALIPATIL, ADV. FOR R5; SRI. MOHD. KHADER KHAN & SRI. MAHD. NOOR KHAN SALEEM, ADVOCATES FOR R6) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO1 ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER
IN THE LIKE NATURE QUASHING THE MUTATION ORDER
DATED1607.2013 VIDE MR No.H11/2013-14 ANNEXURE-J PASSED BY THE4H RESPONDENT TAHASILDAR AND FURTHER DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TAHASILDAR TO RETAIN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONERS IN THE RTC; 1A) TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER
IN THE LIKE NATURE, QUASHING THE ORDER
DATED:
04. 07.2011 VIDE NO.ENQ/101/GBA/2007 VIDE ANNEXURE-M PASSED BY THE5H RESPONDENT AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC:
2023. KHC-K:9362 WP No.207380 of 2017 ORDER
Heard learned counsel, Sri S.S. Halalli, for the petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 4/State, learned counsel, Sri P.S.Malipatil for respondent No.4 and learned counsel, Sri Mohd. Khader Khan for respondent No.5.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that the Land Tribunal, Afzalpur granted occupancy rights vide order dated 07.12.1981 in respect of land bearing Sy.No.681 measuring 23 acres 25 guntas situated at Afzalpur to the father of petitioner nos.1 to 4. The Land Tribunal order is produced at Annexure-A. Pursuant to the said order, Form No.II was issued and thereafter, the mutation was effected in the name of the family members of petitioners. This is reflected in the RTC in the name of the petitioners.
3. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that prior to the grant order made by the Land Tribunal, the name of Waqf was not shown in any records except the gazette notification - 4 - NC:
2023. KHC-K:9362 WP No.207380 of 2017 alleged to have been published on 20.06.1974. It is further case of the petitioners that the Karnataka Board of Waqf instituted an enquiry under Section 54 of the Karnataka Waqf Act, 1995 and passed an order on 04.07.2011 without adverting to the objections raised by the petitioners and that respondent no.5 by letter dated 08.07.2008 has requested the Tahsildar to effect mutation in Sy.No.681 in the name of Waqf and for execution of the eviction order holding that the petitioners are encroachers. Pursuant to the order, the Tahsildar effected the mutation in the name of the Waqf by mutation dated 29.01.2010 by removing the names of the petitioners and incorporating the name of the Waqf Board. Later, in pursuance to the order of the Hon'ble High Court in identical case i.e., W.P.No.81503/2011 dated 21.04.2011, the Tasildar after issuance of notice to the Waqf Board and the petitioners and after hearing both sides, passed an order on 13.03.2013 in the light of grant of occupancy rights by the Land Tribunal, effected the mutation in the name of petitioners on 29.01.2010. This order of the Tahsildar - 5 - NC:
2023. KHC-K:9362 WP No.207380 of 2017 came to be confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 29.11.2013. It is the case of the petitioners that the Assistant Commissioner, Kalaburagi is the Chairman of the Land Tribunal and the Tahsildar is the Secretary and therefore, both are aware about the order passed by the Land Tribunal in favour of the original tenant/inamdar and all the records of Land Tribunal such as the order of the Land Tribunal and certificate of the land tenancy are very much available with these two authorities and despite knowing the fact that the Waqf Board has no right in view of the grant of occupancy rights have not considered these issues and have changed the mutation entry in favour of the Waqf. The petitioners herein being aggrieved by the order of respondent No.5- Waqf Board and the order of the Tahsildar changing the mutation entry in the name of the Waqf Board by mutation entry dated 29.01.2010 is before this Court.
4. It is the vociferous contention of the learned counsel, Sri S.S. Halalli appearing on behalf of the - 6 - NC:
2023. KHC-K:9362 WP No.207380 of 2017 petitioners that the right of the property with regard to Sy.No.681 has been settled by way of order passed by the Land Tribunal dated 07.12.1981 and that in a similar identical case of the Waqf Board in W.P.No.13733/2007 (LR) which was filed by the Waqf Board came to be rejected and the same was taken up in an appeal in Writ Appeal No.117/2008 by respondent No.5-Waqf Board which also came to be dismissed by affirming the order passed by the leaned Single Judge. Therefore, it is contended by the learned counsel that the gazette notification issued on 20.06.1974 is non-est in law and would have no bearing on the orders passed by the Land Tribunal granting occupancy rights in favour of the father of the petitioners herein would not be affected in view of the orders passed by respondent No.5-Waqf Board. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Assistant Commissioner and the Tahsildar while passing the impugned orders have not heard the petitioners and the orders are passed in violation of principles of natural justice and the similar objections and - 7 - NC:
2023. KHC-K:9362 WP No.207380 of 2017 the similar arguments put-forth by respondent No.5 - Waqf Board in the writ petition stated supra, which was dismissed and the writ appeal also dismissed as against respondent No.5 - Waqf Board. The contentions and the arguments put-forth by the learned counsel for the respondents would hold no water, as it is also covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court seeking to quash impugned order dated 16.07.2013 passed by respondent No.4 at Annexure-J and to quash the order dated 04.07.2011 passed by respondent No.5 at Annexure-M.
5. Learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent nos.1 to 4/State contends that at the instance of respondent no.5, a gazette notification has been issued based on which the orders are passed in view of the provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995 and he also contends that there is no illegality or perversity in the orders passed by respondents.-. 8 - NC:
2023. KHC-K:9362 WP No.207380 of 2017 6. Learned counsel Sri P.S.Malipatil appearing on behalf of respondent No.5-Waqf Board vehemently contends that the writ petition is not maintainable, as there is alternative efficacious remedy available under the Waqf Act, 1995. Hence, he contends that the petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground itself. It is further contention of learned counsel for respondent No.5 that even according to the petitioners, the occupancy right granted by order dated 07.12.1981 in respect of Sy.No.681 in which proceedings, respondent No.5-Waqf was not made a party to the proceedings and the land being shown as inam land and was not Waqf property, whereas in view of Gazette notification dated 20.06.1974 under Section 5(2) of the Waqf Act, the property belongs to the Waqf Board, the order so made by the Tahsildar- respondent no.4 is not binding on respondent No.5 and the petitioners cannot derive any right and title based on the said order.-. 9 - NC:
2023. KHC-K:9362 WP No.207380 of 2017 7. It is further contended by learned counsel for respondent No.5 that the grant of occupancy to the father of the petitioners is not binding on the respondents, as the property belongs to respondent No.5 and once characteristic of the property changes to Waqf and is vested with the Waqf Board, it would continue to be a Waqf property and therefore, any order made by the Tribunal would not be binding on respondent No.5 as the property remains to be a Waqf property.
8. It is also vehemently contended by learned counsel for respondent No.5 that the Waqf Board initiated proceedings under Section 54 of the Waqf Act, 1995 for removal of encroacher, by holding enquiry as contemplated in this Act and an order came to be passed on 04.07.2011 for removal of encroacher name entered in the RTC records.-. 10 - NC:
2023. KHC-K:9362 WP No.207380 of 2017 9. It is also contended by the learned counsel for respondent No.5 that the petitioners herein challenged the impugned mutation entry. After the mutation entry was challenged in the name of Waqf Board which itself is also not correct for the simple reason that the petitioners cannot challenge the mutation entry made by the Tahsildar before this Court without exhausting the alternative efficacious remedy provided under Section 136 (2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.
10. It is further contended that respondent No.3 even after issuance of notice to the petitioners, they have failed to produce any document before the authority and accordingly, respondent no.3 directed the Tahsildar to enter the name of the Waqf in the revenue records, based on the said directions, entries have been made in the record of rights. On this ground, he contends that the petitioners cannot seek for quashing the mutation entry without establishing the legal rights before the appropriate forum by filing the appeal or approaching the Civil Court - 11 - NC:
2023. KHC-K:9362 WP No.207380 of 2017 by seeking appropriate directions. Under these circumstances, learned counsel respondent no.5 contends that the petition is not maintainable before this Court and same is liable to be dismissed.
11. The sum and substance of the contentions put forth by learned counsel for respondent no.5 is that even according to the petitioners, the proceedings initiated by the Waqf Board is without following the provisions under Section 54 of the Waqf Act, 1995 as the property in question which is described herein above is not the property belonging to the Waqf Board - respondent No.5 and the father of the petitioners is the grantee of the land by way of grant order made by the Land Tribunal. Therefore, the Waqf Board- respondent No.5 would have absolutely no authority or right, title or interest of the property in question and hence, it cannot claim that the property to be the Waqf property. Learned counsel further contends that the Land Tribunal had granted the occupancy rights in favour of the original grantee on - 12 - NC:
2023. KHC-K:9362 WP No.207380 of 2017 07.12.1981. He further contends that even pursuant to this, as on 01.03.1974 the land vested with the State and in view of the land vesting with the State, the question of Waqf Board-respondent No.5 securing any authority or right or title over the property as on 01.03.1974 would not arise as the land is vested with the State Government. These contentions cannot be taken or canvassed as the Gazette notification is issued which is not questioned.
12. Admittedly there is no dispute that the gazette notification which is relied by respondent no.5 and produced by the petitioners herein is dated 20.06.1974, therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that prior to the gazette notification issued by State Government at the instance of respondent no.5, is clearly pursuant to the land vested with the State Government as on 01.03.1974 which is the appointed date, on which date the Karnataka Land Reforms Act was amended substantially. Therefore, he contends that the land once vest with the State Government, the question of - 13 - NC:
2023. KHC-K:9362 WP No.207380 of 2017 respondent no.5 - Waqf Board becoming the owner or having rights on the property is farfetched imaginary and fictitious.
13. Learned counsel for petitioners relies on the following judgments:- a) Salem Muslim Burial Ground Protection Committee vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others - 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 454 ; b) Karnataka State Board of Wakf and another vs. The Land Tribunal and others -W.P.No.13733/2007 (LR-RES) dated 07.09.2007; c) Karnataka State Board of Wakf and another vs. The Land Tribunal and others - W.A.No.117/2008 (LR) dated 25.11.2008; d) Sri Babuchandkote vs. The State by its Principal Secretary for Revenue, Bangalore and others - W.P.No.204748/2016 (GM- Wakf) dated 17.02.2020.
14. Learned counsel for respondent no.5 has relied on the following judgments : a) Rajesh Kumar Shetty, Mangalore vs. T.Subbaya Shetty and another - - 14 - NC:
2023. KHC-K:9362 WP No.207380 of 2017 W.P.No.11940/2023 (GM-RES) dated 01.12.2023; b) Karnataka Board of Wakfs, R/by Chief Executive Officer vs. The Land Tribunal, Kolar and others - W.A.No.3633/2012 (LR) & W.A..Nos.2462-2463/2013 dated 30.10.2019.
15. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and respondents, the point that would arise for consideration before this Court is "whether the impugned order at Annexures-J & M requires to be quashed in the facts and circumstances of the present case on the basis of the materials placed before this Court and also on the basis of the judgments relied by the learned counsel for the parties?.
16. The admitted facts in the present case are that the Land Tribunal had passed an order on 07.12.1981 granting occupancy rights in favour of father of petitioners in respect of land bearing Sy.No.681 measuring to an extent of 23 acres 25 guntas.-. 15 - NC:
2023. KHC-K:9362 WP No.207380 of 2017 17. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioners herein are the successors of the land from the grantee and it is also not in dispute that prior to the land grant order, the original grantee was in possession and enjoyment of the land.
18. It is an admitted fact that a gazette notification came to be issued on 20.06.1974 at the instance of Waqf Board by the State Government on the premise that the property in question is fallen to the Waqf Board and the respondents claimed that the property so granted in favour of the grantee and claimed by the petitioners herein belong to the Waqf Board and hence initiated the proceedings under Section 54 of the Waqf Act against the petitioners herein for encroachment and an order came to be passed accordingly against the petitioners.
19. It is the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that once the land has been granted by the Land Tribunal under the Land Reforms Act in favour of a - 16 - NC:
2023. KHC-K:9362 WP No.207380 of 2017 private person as a tenant, the same cannot be granted in favour of Waqf Board. It is also the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the land as on 01.03.1974 vested with the State Government and the question of land devolving or respondent no.5 getting the rights of the property is farfetched and imaginary and same is illegal and against the law and against the object of the Land Reforms Act.
20. It is also his argument that if respondent no.5 - Waqf Board is interested in getting occupancy rights, it could have approached to the Land Tribunal for securing the occupancy rights in accordance with law. Whereas it is the argument of learned counsel for respondent no.5 that by virtue of gazette notification issued on 20.06.1974, the property vest with the Waqf Institution i.e., respondent no.5 and therefore the question of Land Tribunal awarding occupancy rights in favour of grantee as on 22.12.1981 is against the provisions of Waqf Act of 1995. Hence the orders passed by the Tahsildar and Assistant - 17 - NC:
2023. KHC-K:9362 WP No.207380 of 2017 Commissioner cannot be questioned in the writ petition before this Court and will have to be challenged by way of an alternative efficacious remedy available under the Waqf Act and not before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
21. As per the Land Reforms Act, the cut-off date for vesting of the land by the State is on 01.03.1974, which is not in dispute and it is a law by virtue of the statute that as on 01.03.1974 land vests with the State Government and it is the discretion of the State to grant the land in favour of the occupants on the application made by such persons. The vesting of land is under Section 44 of the Land Reforms Act, 1961 in pursuance to the amendment to the Land Reforms Act. Therefore, in pursuance to the amendment made to the Land Reforms Act, the tenants would get an opportunity to get themselves registered as the occupants by filing a necessary application before the authorities for grant of occupancy rights. On such application being made, the - 18 - NC:
2023. KHC-K:9362 WP No.207380 of 2017 original grantee was granted the occupancy rights with regard to the above mentioned two properties to the extent mentioned herein above.
22. When the land vested with the State Government as on 01.03.1974, the subsequent date of gazette notification published by the State Government at the instance of respondent no.5 on 20.06.1974 with regard to the very same land would not have much relevance or bearing on the land already vested with the State as per Section 44 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. While granting occupancy rights the Tribunal has considered several aspects including the factual aspects of possession and came to the conclusion for granting the land in favour of the original grantee and accordingly, entered the name of the original grantee in the revenue records.
23. In similar situation and questioning the very same notification of the State Government at the instance - 19 - NC:
2023. KHC-K:9362 WP No.207380 of 2017 of fifth respondent - Waqf Board, a petition came to be filed by the Waqf Board in W.P.No.13733/2007 before this Court, wherein similar arguments were addressed with regard to Gazette notification dated 20.06.1974 and the property belonging to the Waqf Board contending the Land Tribunal not having the rights or the person who was granted occupancy right would not get any right in view of the Waqf Act, 1995 and vesting of the property with the Waqf Institution. The said petition was heard and contested and came to be rejected against the Waqf Board by upholding the grant of land by the Tribunal in favor of original grantee and rejecting the contentions of the Waqf Board with regard to the gazette notification of 20.06.1974 proclaiming the property belonged to the Waqf Board.
24. It is also relevant to mention here that the said order of Coordinate Bench of this Court rejecting the contentions of the Waqf Board in the above stated petition was taken-up in appeal before the Division Bench in W.A.No.117/2008. After contest, the writ appeal also - 20 - NC:
2023. KHC-K:9362 WP No.207380 of 2017 came to be dismissed and the order of the learned Single Judge came to be affirmed.
25. The very same contention raised herein that the gazette notification of 20.06.1974 by which the land vested with the respondent no.5-Waqf Board was negatived by co-ordinate bench of this court and the same was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court.
26. The present case filed by the petitioner is factually similar to the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.No.13733/2007, which is upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.117/2008. In a similar matter, the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.204748/2016 had an opportunity to deal with the matter and the said writ petition was filed by the grantee of the occupancy rights by the Land Tribunal and even in the said case the contention of the Waqf Board with the same gazette notification of 20.06.1974 was agitated and argued elaborately.-. 21 - NC:
2023. KHC-K:9362 WP No.207380 of 2017 27. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the above said writ petition at para 11 dealt with the matter and held as under :
"11. The petitioner is in possession of the petition land pursuant to the Land Tribunal granting occupancy rights in favour of his father by order dated 29.12.1981. It is seen that the petitioner has inherited the petition land after the death of his father. Since Basavanthraya was a lawful tenant and occupancy rights was granted, he continued to be in exclusive possession and enjoyment over the petition land. The respondent Nos.5 and 6 have no jurisdiction to hold an enquiry in respect of petition land. Since the order of Land Tribunal has attained finality, the Gazette Notification dated 20.06.1974 notifying the petition land as Wakf property is of no consequence. The respondent Nos.5 and 6 cannot initiate any proceedings in respect of petition land which is a private property and thereby, they cannot exercise the powers conferred under Section 54 of the Wakfs Act, 1995. The enquiry by the Enquiry Officer as per Annexure-L holding that the petition land is a wakf property and further recording of finding that petitioner is an encroacher and the direction issued by the Enquiry Officer by exercising power under Section 54 directing the - 22 - NC:
2023. KHC-K:9362 WP No.207380 of 2017 petitioner to hand over vacant possession of the petition land is one without jurisdiction.
28. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Salem Muslim Burial Ground Protection Committee vs. State of Tamilnadu and others1 while dealing with the issue of the publication of gazette notification by the State Government at the instance of respondent no.5, has held at paragraphs 32 and 35 as follows:-
"32. A plain reading of the provisions of the above two Acts would reveal that the notification under Section 5 of both the Acts declaring the list of the wakfs shall only be published after completion of the process as laid down under Section 4 of the above Acts, which provides for two surveys, settlement of disputes arising thereto and the submission of the report to the State Government and to the Board. Therefore, conducting of the surveys before declaring a property a wakf property is a sine qua non. In the case at hand, there is no material or evidence on record that before issuing notification under Section 5 of the Wakf Act, 1954, any procedure or the survey was conducted as contemplated by Section 4 of the Act. In the 1 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 454 - 23 - NC:
2023. KHC-K:9362 WP No.207380 of 2017 absence of such a material, the mere issuance of the notification under Section 5 of the Act would not constitute a valid wakf in respect of the suit land. Therefore, the notification dated 29.04.1959 is not a conclusive proof of the fact that the suit land is a wakf property. It is for this reason probably that the appellant Committee had never pressed the said notification into service up till 1999.
33. xxx 34. xxx 35. It may be noted that Wakf Board is a statutory authority under the Wakf Act. Therefore, the official Gazette is bound to carry any notification at the instance of the Wakf Board but nonetheless, the State Government is not bound by such a publication of the notification published in the official Gazette merely for the reason that it has been so published. In State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. A.P. State Wakf Board and Ors.2, this Court consisting of one of us (V. Ramasubramanian, J.
as a Member) held that the publication of a notification in the official Gazette has a presumption of knowledge to the general public just like an advertisement published in the newspaper but such a notification published at the instance of the Wakf Board in the State Gazette is not binding upon the 2 2022 SCC OnLine SC159- 24 - NC:
2023. KHC-K:9362 WP No.207380 of 2017 State Government. It means that the notification, if any, published in the official Gazette at the behest of the Wakf Act giving the lists of the wakfs is not a conclusive proof that a particular property is a wakf property especially, when no procedure as prescribed under Section 4 of the Wakf Act has been followed in issuing the same.
29. In view of the above said judgments and the submissions put-forth by the learned counsel for both parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case that as on 01.03.1974 the land vested with the State Government, the question of gazette notification dated 20.06.1974 which is issued at the instance of respondent no.5 would not be of any assistance to respondent no.5 for the simple reason that the respondent no.5 would not get any jurisdiction to hold an enquiry on the land belonging to the petitioners which has been secured from the original grantee from the competent authority, the land Tribunal. Therefore, I am afraid the arguments and contentions put-forth by respondent no.5 cannot be accepted that the - 25 - NC:
2023. KHC-K:9362 WP No.207380 of 2017 land belongs to Waqf Board and once it is a Waqf land, it remains a Waqf land forever.
30. In the present case on hand, as this Court does not find any substance or material to hold that the land in question belonged to the Waqf property and as such, it would continue and remain Waqf property and it would always be a Waqf property as the gazette notification dated 20.06.1974 was published, which contentions were raised by respondent no.5 herein has been negatived on the earlier occasion by this Court and upheld by the Division Bench of this Court. Hence, the same cannot be accepted. Therefore, the contentions put-forth by the learned counsel Sri S.S.Halalli for the petitioners is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case and this Court is also in agreement with such contentions that the land vested with the State Government as on 01.03.1974 and Tribunal having granted occupancy rights in favour of original grantee has conducted enquiry and based on the substance and - 26 - NC:
2023. KHC-K:9362 WP No.207380 of 2017 material placed before it, the Tribunal has granted the occupancy rights to the original grantee which is fallen now to the petitioners, on inheritance. It cannot be said that the Waqf Board - respondent No.5 gets right by virtue of the gazette notification dated 20.06.1974.
31. I am also of the opinion that respondent No.5 - Waqf Board cannot institute any petition/proceedings against the petitioners as the property does not belong to the Waqf and no material has been placed to establish that the property belongs to the Waqf Board under the Waqf Act, 1995. It is trite law that any orders passed without jurisdiction is non-est in law. Under such circumstances, conducting of any proceedings by respondent no.5 or the authorities declaring that the property belongs to the Waqf Board and to declare that the petitioners are encroacher is farfetched and abuse of process of the Court and the subsequent proceedings initiated against the petitioners under Section 54 of the Waqf Act directing the petitioners to handover possession is baseless and holds no water.-. 27 - NC:
2023. KHC-K:9362 WP No.207380 of 2017 Therefore, the subsequent proceedings would also not enure to the benefit of respondent no.5. In view of above discussions, I pass the following : ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 16.07.2013 by respondent No.4 vide Annexure-J and order dated 04.07.2011 passed by respondent no.5 vide Annexure-M are hereby quashed. (iii) In view of subsequent orders passed by this Court, the mutation entries shall be reversed in the name of petitioners. (iv) The mutation entries which are now standing in the name of respondent No.5- Waqf Board shall be reversed in view of the order passed by this Court today within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.-. 28 - NC:
2023. KHC-K:9362 WP No.207380 of 2017 In view of disposal of the writ petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, would not survive for consideration and same pales into significance. Sd/- JUDGE RSP/SN List No.:
1. Sl No.:
1.