Private Property Cannot Be Wakf Property Merely By Insertion Made By Tahsildar In Revenue Records Without Any Enquiry: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court directed the deletion of an illegal entry in revenue records holding that a private property cannot be a wakf property merely by insertion in revenue records made by the Tahsildar without conducting any enquiry.
A Single Bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj observed, “When the Tahsildar has deleted the name of the petitioner and inserted the name of the Wakf Board, the property cannot be said to be the wakf property merely by such insertion. The enquiry being required to be made as aforesaid, the same not having been made, it cannot now be contended by the Wakf Board that there is a dispute of the title as regards the property belonging to the Wakf Board, requiring the petitioner to approach the Wakf Tribunal under Section 83 of the Act, that would have been the case, if the name of the Wakf Board was always found on the records and a new claim was made by a third party.”
Advocate Ravi B. Patil appeared for the petitioners, while HCGP Maya T.R. represented the respondent.
The Court noted that the petitioner had purchased the land under a registered sale deed and the revenue entries were made in the name of the petitioner in the revenue records. It was thereafter that the Regional Commissioner issued a Notification issuing general directions to all officers to cause entry of the name of the Wakf Board as regards the Wakf properties, after inquiry.
In furtherance of the said notification, the Deputy Commissioner had directed the officers subordinate to him to cause such entries. The Bench stated that both the Deputy Commissioner and the Tahsildar completely misconstrued the notification as the Regional Commissioner had specifically stated that due enquiry had to be made
“There was a determination required to be made on available documents as to whether the property is Wakf property or not. Without carrying out any such enquiry, the Deputy Commissioner in furtherance of the Notification directed his subordinate officers, including respondent No.4- Tahsildar to carry out the instructions of the Regional Commissioner,” the Court remarked.
The Bench also explained that the claim made by the Wakf Board regarding the private property would not make Section 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995 applicable requiring the petitioner to approach the Wakf Tribunal.
“The Tahsildar has considered the direction of the Deputy Commissioner to be a direction to insert the name of the Wakf Board by deleting the name of private owners, which is not what is contemplated in the Notification and the direction issued by Deputy Commissioner,” the Bench observed.
Consequently, the Court directed, “Mandamus is issued directing respondent No.4 to delete the entry of the record of rights in respect of land of the petitioner…and reinstate the name of the petitioner in the said revenue records within sixty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition.
Cause Title: Smt. Chennamma v. The Regional Commissioner & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KHC-K:5719)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocate Ravi B. Patil
Respondent: HCGP Maya T.R., Advocate P.S. Malipatil
