Karnataka HC Dismisses Family’s Challenge To Wakf Listing Of 1.12 Acres, Leaving Ownership And Graveyard Dispute Open For Tribunal

The petitioners claimed through a 1981 sale deed that they owned 1 acre 12 guntas in Sy. No. 56/1A, and challenged a 2010 corrigendum that included the land as Wakf property, as well as a 2019 notification concerning the same land

The respondents disputed the identity and ownership of the land, relying, among other matters, on the sale deed’s description of Sy. No. 55/1A and on the land’s use as a burial ground

A survey conducted during the writ proceedings recorded graves in the disputed area, but the Court noted that the survey did not determine title or Wakf character

The petitioners sought, among other reliefs, to quash the notifications, establish that the respondents had no rights over the land, and remove the burials

Sections 4 and 5 of the Wakf Act, 1995 provide for the survey of auqaf and publication of the list of Wakfs; Sections 6 and 7 provide a Tribunal remedy for disputes concerning whether property specified in that list is Wakf property; and Section 83(1) gives the Tribunal jurisdiction over disputes, questions or matters relating to a Wakf or Wakf property, while Section 85 bars other legal proceedings only in matters required by or under the Act to be determined by the Tribunal.

The Court applied the principle that the existence of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 is distinct from whether it should be exercised; a High Court may decline to decide disputed facts requiring oral evidence, while an alternative remedy is ordinarily relevant to the exercise of writ jurisdiction.

It relied on State of Andhra Pradesh v. Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board, Rashid Wali Beg v. Farid Pindari, and Board of Wakf, West Bengal v. Anis Fatma Begum on the scope of writ and Tribunal jurisdiction, and on Nishat Kasar v. State of Karnataka concerning the Tribunal’s inability to strike down a notification or corrigendum.

The Court did not determine whether the impugned corrigendum was legally valid.

The petitioners’ claim depended on resolving whether the 1981 deed—on its face describing Sy. No. 55/1A—conveyed Sy. No. 56/1A, and on assessing the chain of title, survey records, grave locations and evidence of burial use. The later correction of the survey number and the survey report did not conclusively establish those matters; their determination required evidence and a trial, which the Court considered inappropriate in the writ proceedings.

The underlying dispute also concerned whether the land was Wakf property and the reliefs sought depended on that determination. The Tribunal could consider the relevant documents and evidence and grant appropriate relief, including interim relief.

Although the Court retained constitutional jurisdiction, it declined to exercise it on the disputed factual issues and left the parties’ substantive claims open.

It dismissed the petition without deciding the merits and reserved liberty to the petitioners to seek the same or similar relief before the competent Wakf Tribunal. The petitioners were granted the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act for the time spent prosecuting the writ petition. The survey report remained on the record and could be relied on before the Tribunal, subject to the applicable rules of evidence.