MR. IMAMHUSEN S/O. BADESAB LATAGERI vs KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF AUQAF

- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6688
WP No. 104186 of 2026

HC-KAR




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD

R
RD
DATED THIS THE 3 DAY OF JUNE, 2026


BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

WRIT PETITION NO.104186 OF 2026 (GM-WAKF)



BETWEEN:

1. MR. IMAMHUSEN S/O. BADESAB LATAGERI,
AGE: 32 YEARS,
OCC. CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER,
R/O. NEAR YAMANOORAPPA KATTI,
WARD NO.7, ALAMPURPETH, TQ. ILKAL,
DIST. BAGALKOT-587 125.

2. MR. MUHAMMED RAFIK S/O. LADALESAB NADAF,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. WARD NO.7, SAKA ROAD,
ALAMPUR PETH, TQ. ILKAL,
DIST. BAGALKOT-587 125.

3. MR. RIYAZ S/O. MAHEBOOBSAB BHANNU,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. WARD NO.4, HOSPETE ONI,
TQ. ILKAL, DIST. BAGALKOT-587 125.

4. MR. RIYAZ S/O. YAMANURSAB PINJAR,
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. WARD NO.1, VIDYAGIRI,
TQ. ILKAL, DIST. BAGALKOT-587 125.

5. MR. ALTAF S/O. MURTUZASAB KARADI,
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. 242/B/24, WARD NO.7,
ALAMPUR PETH, TQ. ILKAL,
DIST. BAGALKOT-587 125.













Digitally signed
by
MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR

- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6688
WP No. 104186 of 2026

HC-KAR


6. MR. MEHABOOBSAB
S/O. AHAMADSAB GODEKAR,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. 4438/A, ALAPUR PETH,
ANJUMAN PLOT, WARD NO.7,
TQ. ILKAL, DIST. BAGALKOT-587 125.

7. MR. SIKANDAR BASHA S/O. MURTUZA SAHEB,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. WARD NO.1, NEAR CENTRAL SCHOOL,
TQ. ILKAL, DIST. BAGALKOT-587 125.

8. MR. MOHAMMED SAMEER SHEIKH S/O. BASHER,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. WARD NO.2, NEAR KAUSAR MASJID,
TQ. ILKAL, DIST. BAGALKOT-587 125.
… PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SOURABH SONDUR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF AUQAF
DARUL AUQAF, #6 CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 051,
R/BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

2. CHAIRMAN,
KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF AUQAF,
DARUL AUQAF, #6 CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 051.

3. DISTRICT WAKF OFFICE,
TQ. AND DIST. BAGALKOT-587 101.

4. ANJUMAN-E-ISLAM,
WARD NO.3, ILKAL TOWN,
TQ. ILKAL, DIST. BAGALKOT-587 125,
BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER.
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. D.L. LADKHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1)

- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6688
WP No. 104186 of 2026

HC-KAR


THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE
A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 TO DISPOSE OFF THE REVIEW PETITION
FILED BY THE PETITIONER ON 06/05/2026 VIDE ANNEXURE-G
BEFORE FINALISING THE CONSTITUTION OF MANAGING
COMMITTEE OF RESPONDENT NO.4 WAKF INSTITUTION AND
ETC.,

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
The petitioner has presented the instant writ petition
seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent
No.1–Karnataka State Wakf Board to consider and dispose of
the review petition stated to have been filed on 06.05.2026
before proceeding further with the process of constitution of the
Managing Committee of respondent No.4–Wakf Institution.

2. The material on record would indicate that
respondent No.1-Board has approved a scheme governing the
administration and management of respondent No.4-Wakf
Institution. The petitioner, claiming to be a person interested in
the wakf, has questioned the approval of the scheme and has
chosen to file a review petition before respondent No.1-Board

- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6688
WP No. 104186 of 2026

HC-KAR


seeking reconsideration of the scheme. The grievance
ventilated in the present writ petition is that the review petition
is not being considered, while simultaneously steps are being
taken to constitute the Managing Committee in terms of the
approved scheme.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that respondent No.1 having received the review
petition is under an obligation to adjudicate the same before
taking consequential steps pursuant to the scheme. He would
contend that if the Managing Committee is constituted pending
consideration of the review petition, the petitioner’s rights
would stand irreversibly prejudiced.

4. Per contra , learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.1 and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the impleading applicant would raise a preliminary objection
regarding maintainability. They would contend that the Wakf
Act, 1995 provides a complete statutory mechanism to
challenge a scheme framed or approved by the Board. It is
their specific contention that neither Section 32 nor Section 69
of the Wakf Act, 1995 confers any power of review on the

- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6688
WP No. 104186 of 2026

HC-KAR


Board. Therefore, the review petition itself is not maintainable.
They would further submit that the petitioner has an efficacious
alternative remedy before the Wakf Tribunal and therefore, no
mandamus can be issued directing the Board to decide a
proceeding which is not maintainable in law.

5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties and having examined the statutory scheme governing
the field, this Court is of the considered view that the objection
regarding maintainability deserves acceptance.

6. The controversy involved in the present case
essentially revolves around the statutory remedies available
against a scheme framed or approved by the Board and
therefore it would be necessary to examine Sections 32 and 69
of the Wakf Act, 1995 in some detail.

7. Section 32 of the Wakf Act, 1995 enumerates the
powers and functions of the Board. Under clause (d) of sub-
section (2), the Board is empowered to settle schemes of
management for a Wakf. The said power is one of general
superintendence and control vested in the Board to ensure

- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6688
WP No. 104186 of 2026

HC-KAR


proper maintenance, administration and governance of wakf
institutions.

8. The Legislature, while conferring such power upon
the Board, has simultaneously provided a statutory remedy
under Section 32(3), which reads to the effect that where the
Board has settled any scheme of management under clause
(d), any person interested in the wakf or affected by such
settlement may institute proceedings before the Wakf Tribunal
for setting aside such settlement and the decision of the
Tribunal shall be final.

9. The language employed in Section 32(3) is of
considerable significance. The Legislature has consciously used
the expression “any person interested in the waqf or affected
by such settlement”. The remedy is therefore not confined to a
mutawalli. The right of challenge is extended to every
stakeholder having an interest in the wakf and every person
whose rights are affected by the settlement of the scheme.

10. Thus, Section 32(3) creates a broad and
comprehensive statutory remedy. Beneficiaries, worshippers,
members of the managing committee, descendants entitled to

- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6688
WP No. 104186 of 2026

HC-KAR


participate in administration, persons interested in the wakf
and all other affected stakeholders are entitled to invoke the
jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal and question the validity,
legality or propriety of the scheme settled by the Board.

11. Section 69, however, stands on a different footing.
The said provision empowers the Board, upon being satisfied
after an enquiry either suo motu or on an application made by
interested persons, to frame a scheme for proper
administration of a wakf.

12. Sub-section (2) of Section 69 the Wakf Act, 1995
assumes importance. It provides that the scheme framed under
sub-section (1) may provide for removal of the mutawalli
holding office immediately before the scheme comes into force.
The proviso to sub-section (2) further protects hereditary rights
by requiring inclusion of the person next in hereditary
succession as a member of the committee where a hereditary
mutawalli is removed.

13. Sub-section (3) declares that every order made
under sub-section (2) shall be final and binding upon the
mutawalli and all persons interested in the wakf. However, the

- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6688
WP No. 104186 of 2026

HC-KAR


first proviso to sub-section (3) carves out an important
exception and confers a right of appeal to the Tribunal against
an order made under Section 69 of the Wakf Act, 1995.

14. Therefore, the remedy provided under Section
69(3) read with the proviso thereto is fundamentally directed
against an order framed under Section 69 which directly
impacts the administration of the wakf and, more particularly,
affects the office, status, powers or continuance of the
mutawalli.

15. A conjoint reading of Sections 32 and 69 the Wakf
Act, 1995 would reveal that though both provisions relate to
administration of wakf institutions, they operate in different
fields and cater to different categories of grievances.

16. Section 32(3) is stakeholder-centric. It provides a
remedy to every person interested in the wakf or affected by
the scheme. The focus of Section 32(3) is on the validity and
legality of the scheme itself.

17. Section 69(3), on the other hand, is order-centric.
It provides a remedy against an order framed under

- 9 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6688
WP No. 104186 of 2026

HC-KAR


Section 69, particularly where such order affects the existing
management structure or results in removal of a mutawalli. The
focus under Section 69 is on the consequences flowing from the
order made by the Board while framing a scheme.

18. Therefore, if a mutawalli is aggrieved by a scheme
framed under Section 69 the Wakf Act, 1995 which affects his
office, powers, hereditary rights or continuance in
administration, the statute itself provides a specific appellate
remedy before the Tribunal. Likewise, if any other person
interested in the wakf is aggrieved by the scheme, Section
32(3) provides an independent statutory remedy before the
Tribunal.

19. The common thread running through both
provisions is that the Legislature has consciously entrusted
adjudication of disputes relating to schemes to the Wakf
Tribunal and not to the Board itself. The Tribunal is the
statutory forum designated to examine the legality, propriety
and validity of schemes framed or approved by the Board.

20. It is in this background that the maintainability of
the review petition requires examination.

- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6688
WP No. 104186 of 2026

HC-KAR



21. The Wakf Act, 1995 does not contain any provision
conferring power of review upon the Board in relation to a
scheme settled or approved under Sections 32 or 69. It is trite
law that the power of review is not an inherent power. Unless
expressly conferred by statute or necessarily implied, no
authority can assume review jurisdiction.

22. This Court does not find any provision in the Wakf
Act, 1995 enabling the Board to revisit, reconsider or review a
scheme once framed or approved. On the contrary, the
statutory framework indicates that disputes concerning such
schemes are intended to be resolved by the Wakf Tribunal.

23. When the statute itself creates a special forum and
provides a specific remedy against approval or framing of a
scheme, permitting a review before the Board would amount to
rewriting the legislative scheme. Such an interpretation would
render the remedies under Section 32(3) and the proviso to
Section 69(3) largely redundant.

24. The petitioner cannot therefore insist that
respondent No.1 should adjudicate the review petition. In the
absence of any statutory duty cast upon the Board to entertain

- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6688
WP No. 104186 of 2026

HC-KAR


a review petition, no writ of mandamus can be issued directing
respondent No.1 to decide the same.

25. The relief sought by the petitioner is founded on the
assumption that the review petition is maintainable. Once it is
held that the Wakf Act, 1995 does not contemplate any such
review jurisdiction, the very foundation of the writ petition
collapses.

26. This Court is therefore of the view that the
petitioner has an efficacious and adequate statutory remedy
before the Wakf Tribunal. If the grievance relates to the validity
of the scheme, the remedy lies under Section 32(3). If the
petitioner is aggrieved by an order passed under Section 69
affecting management or rights flowing therefrom, the remedy
lies before the Tribunal under the proviso to Section 69(3). In
either case, the challenge has to be worked out before the
Tribunal and not before the Board through a review petition.

27. For the reasons stated supra , this Court is of the
considered view that the review petition filed before respondent
No.1-Board is not maintainable and consequently no direction

- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6688
WP No. 104186 of 2026

HC-KAR


can be issued requiring respondent No.1 to dispose of the said
review petition.
ORDER

i. The writ petition stands disposed of .

ii. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to avail the
statutory remedy before the Wakf Tribunal in
accordance with Section 32(3) and/or the proviso
to Section 69(3) of the Wakf Act, as may be
permissible in law.

iii. All contentions on merits are left open.

iv. No opinion is expressed on the legality or validity
of the scheme approved by respondent No.1.

v. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand
disposed of.

vi. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
AM/-
CT:BCK
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 20