Karnataka HC Quashes Wakf Eviction Order Against Buyer Of Re-Granted Inam Land, Citing No Title Inquiry Or Hearing

The dispute concerned land bearing Sy.No.38A/5A, measuring 1 acre 6 guntas.

The petitioner claimed that the land was an inam which vested in the State following abolition of inams, and was re-granted to Babasab Miyasaheb Peerzade in 1962; it was later converted to ordinary ryotwari tenure, inherited by Babasab’s son, and conveyed to the petitioner by registered sale deed.

The petitioner’s name was entered in the CTS records.

In 2011, the Karnataka Wakf Board requisitioned action concerning the land.

In 2014, the Deputy Commissioner directed the Tahsildar to take possession and hand it over to the Dargah, allegedly without notice or an enquiry into the petitioner’s title or the land’s Wakf character.

The Wakf Tribunal dismissed the petitioner’s appeal under Section 52(4) of the Wakf Act, 1995; the petitioner then challenged the Tribunal’s judgment, the Deputy Commissioner’s order, and the Board’s requisition.

The Court applied the principle that statutory vesting under an inam-abolition enactment, followed by a valid re-grant, cannot be displaced merely by a subsequent Wakf entry or notification; the Wakf authorities must establish the property’s Wakf character and the legal basis for their claim.

Relying on Sri Babuchandkote v. State of Karnataka (W.P. No. 204748 of 2016, decided 17 February 2020) and Karnataka State Board of Wakfs v. Land Tribunal (W.P. No. 26096 of 2012, decided 15 July 2025), the Court held that the original grant and the consequences of inam abolition must be examined, and that a subsequent Wakf notification cannot override statutory vesting.

It also relied on Salem Muslim Burial Ground Protection Committee v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2023) 16 SCC 264, for the importance of the statutory survey and enquiry preceding inclusion of property in the Wakf list; a mere notification is not, by itself, conclusive proof of Wakf character where that character is disputed.

Further, an authority proposing to dispossess a person in possession must conduct an independent enquiry, give the affected person an opportunity to be heard, and issue a reasoned order.

The petitioner produced material tracing the land’s history from inam tenure through statutory vesting and re-grant to Babasab, followed by inheritance and a registered conveyance to the petitioner.

That material required the Wakf authorities to establish how the property nevertheless retained Wakf character; asserting that Babasab was a trustee, or relying on a Wakf entry, did not answer that foundational question.

The Tribunal did not meaningfully examine the original grant, the effect of abolition and vesting, the legal character of the re-grant, any dedication to Wakf, or the survey proceedings supporting the Wakf entry.

The Deputy Commissioner’s order also rested substantially on the Board’s requisition, which could not itself prove title or justify dispossession.

The petitioner was not shown to have received an effective opportunity to establish his title and possession.

It allowed the writ petition, quashed the Wakf Tribunal’s judgment, the Deputy Commissioner’s order and the Board’s requisition insofar as they concerned the subject land, and restrained the respondents from dispossessing the petitioner under those proceedings.

The order did not prevent the Wakf authorities from establishing their title before the competent forum on legally admissible material.