Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Sahebalal S/o Gudusab Rohile and Munoruddin S/o Abasaheb Jinabade, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, challenging an order dated 04.05.2023 passed by the 1st respondent, the Enquiry Officer of the Karnataka State Board of Auqaf. The impugned order was passed in a petition filed by the 2nd respondent, the Dargah Estate (Sunni) Kudachi, under Section 54 of the Wakf Act, 1995. The petitioners sought a writ of certiorari to quash the order and to dismiss the petition. The petitioners were represented by Sri. Shriharsh A Neelopant, while respondents 1-3 were represented by Sri. D L Ladkhan, and the proposed respondent no. 4 was represented by Sri. A D Nadaf. The court, presided over by Justice Suraj Govindaraj, heard the matter and delivered an oral order. The court noted that the Enquiry Officer under Section 54 of the Wakf Act has limited powers to conduct an enquiry and submit a report to the Board, and cannot pass a final order determining rights or ordering eviction. The impugned order was found to be without jurisdiction and in violation of principles of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners. The court also observed that the petitioners have an efficacious alternative remedy before the Wakf Tribunal under Section 83 of the Act, but since the order was without jurisdiction, the writ petition was maintainable. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order, and dismissed the petition filed under Section 54 of the Wakf Act.
Headnote
A) Wakf Law - Jurisdiction of Enquiry Officer under Section 54 of Wakf Act, 1995 - The Enquiry Officer under Section 54 has limited powers to conduct an enquiry and submit a report to the Board, and cannot pass a final order determining rights or ordering eviction - Held that the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent is without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed (Paras 5-7). B) Wakf Law - Alternative Remedy - Section 83 of Wakf Act, 1995 provides for a Tribunal to adjudicate disputes regarding wakf property - The petitioners have an efficacious alternative remedy before the Wakf Tribunal - However, since the impugned order is without jurisdiction, the writ petition is maintainable (Para 6). C) Natural Justice - Violation of Principles of Natural Justice - The impugned order was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners - Held that such order is in violation of principles of natural justice and is unsustainable (Para 7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Enquiry Officer under Section 54 of the Wakf Act, 1995 has jurisdiction to pass an order regarding eviction or determination of rights over wakf property, and whether such order is sustainable without affording opportunity of hearing.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order bearing No. KSBA/ENQ/47/BGM/2022 dated 04.05.2023 passed by the 1st respondent is quashed. The petition filed under Section 54 of the Wakf Act by the 2nd respondent is dismissed.
Law Points
- Wakf Act
- 1995
- Section 54
- Section 83
- Jurisdiction of Enquiry Officer
- Natural Justice
- Writ of Certiorari
- Alternative Remedy
