Read Time: 06 minutes
It is for the Wakf Board to establish its title over the property as against a private party which would not come within the purview of Section 83 of the Waqf Act, court said
In a recent decision, the Karnataka High Court at Kalaburagi bench, clarified that merely updating the name of the Waqf Board in revenue records does not automatically classify a property as Waqf property.
The bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj on August 6, passed the order in a matter regarding a property in Raichur district, Karnataka.
The case pertained to a property purchased by the petitioner in 2012. Following a direction from the regional commissioner to identify and record Waqf properties, the local tahsildar altered the revenue records to list the Waqf Board as the owner. This change occurred during the 2018-2019 period.
Though the petitioner submitted a representation to the tahsildar seeking to remove the illegal entries and reinstate her name, no action was taken thereon.
The petitioner’s counsel challenged the update, arguing that it was done without proper notice or investigation.
On the other hand, the opposing counsel contended that the property’s status as Waqf should be resolved before the Waqf Tribunal, as outlined in Section 83 of the Waqf Act, 1995.
Court noted that it was not in dispute 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.
Court held that the deputy commissioner and tahsildar had misinterpreted the regional commissioner’s direction, which explicitly required a thorough inquiry before making any changes to the records.
The tahsildar mistakenly interpreted the Deputy Commissioner’s direction as an instruction to replace private owners' names with that of the Wakf Board, which was not the intent of the Notification or the Deputy Commissioner’s order, court noted.
It emphasized that the property could not be deemed Waqf solely based on the updated records without a proper investigation.
It stressed that the property in question stood in the name of a private party, which would not make Section 83 of the Waqf Act applicable requiring the petitioner to approach the Wakf Tribunal. "It is for the Wakf Board to establish its title over the property as against a private party which would not come within the purview of Section 83 of the Act," court said.
Accordingly, court allowed the petition and set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Lingasugur. It directed the Tehsildar concerned to delete the entry of the District Wakf Officer, Raichur of the record of rights in respect of the land of the petitioner.
The bench ordered that the petitioner’s name should be restored. However, it allowed the tahsildar to conduct a proper inquiry to determine the property's status.
Case Title: Smt. Chennamma v. The Regional Commissioner Kalaburagi Region and Others
Please Login or Register
