Justice Suraj Govindaraj, highlights the critical importance of conducting a thorough inquiry before making any changes to ownership records, particularly when private ownership is at stake.
Karnataka: The Karnataka High Court annulled an order that erroneously included the Wakf Board’s name in the revenue records without following the necessary legal procedures.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj, highlights the critical importance of conducting a thorough inquiry before making any changes to ownership records, particularly when private ownership is at stake.
The case centers around a piece of land located in Survey No. 179/5, measuring 39 guntas, in Karadkal village, Lingasugur Taluk, Raichur District. The petitioner, Smt. Chennamma, represented by Advocate Ravi B. Patil, claimed rightful ownership of the land, having acquired it through a registered sale deed on October 5, 2012. The land had changed hands multiple times over the years, and the petitioner’s name was duly recorded in the revenue records.
However, in 2018-2019, the Tahsildar, acting on orders from the Deputy Commissioner and following a notification issued by the Regional Commissioner, inserted the name of the District Wakf Officer into the revenue records, marking the land as Wakf property. The petitioner contested this action, arguing that it was done without a proper inquiry and without affording her the opportunity to present her case.
The central issue before the court was whether the Wakf Board’s name could be entered into the revenue records without a proper inquiry to establish the land as Wakf property. Additionally, the court examined whether the petitioner was required to approach the Wakf Tribunal under Section 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995, to resolve the dispute.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj observed that the directives from the Regional Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner were misinterpreted by the Tahsildar. The notification from the Regional Commissioner explicitly mandated an inquiry to determine whether the property was indeed Wakf land before making any changes to the revenue records.
However, the Tahsildar bypassed this crucial step and unilaterally inserted the Wakf Board’s name into the records without notifying the petitioner.
The court stressed that merely 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 stated.
Furthermore, the court concluded that Section 83 of the Wakf Act, which requires disputes to be taken to the Wakf Tribunal, was not applicable in this case. The court explained that this 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.”
In light of these findings, 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 granted liberty to the authorities to conduct a proper inquiry, “following the correct legal procedures.”
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
