Tenant’s Request Led To Waqf Registration, Which Karnataka HC Quashed Because The Family Waqf’s Mutawalli Got No Notice

The petitioner claimed to be the Mutawalli of a family waqf created by a registered deed dated 8 January 1945.

The dispute concerned two parcels at Bazar Bunder Village, Mangaluru Taluk.

While the petitioner’s eviction suit against tenants was pending, respondent No. 1 registered the parcels as waqf property on 28 December 2020, following a representation by tenant Ayoob.

The petitioner said he first learned of the registration when the Board sought to be impleaded in the suit and challenged the certificate, alleging lack of notice and non-compliance with Section 36 of the Waqf Act, 1995

The Board objected that the petition was time-barred and that the petitioner should pursue the statutory remedy before the Waqf Tribunal

The petitioner also relied on earlier civil-court decisions concerning the same waqf deed and property, which had treated the waqf as private or family waqf.

Section 3(r) of the Waqf Act, 1995 defines waqf as the permanent dedication of property for a purpose recognised by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable.

Section 36 governs registration of waqf, while Sections 6 and 83 provide statutory routes for disputes concerning waqf property and recourse to the Waqf Tribunal.

The High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 may be exercised despite an alternative remedy where, among other circumstances, there is a breach of natural justice or the impugned action is wholly without jurisdiction; the Court relied on the principles discussed in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks and M/s Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority.

It also considered Hydersha Abusha Malangsha v. Karnataka State Board of Wakfs as supporting writ intervention in the face of an alleged statutory violation.

The Board’s reliance on Board of Wakf, West Bengal v. Anis Fatma Begum and Rashid Wali Beg v. Farid Pindari—concerning recourse to the Tribunal—did not displace writ review in the circumstances found here.

The Court held that the Board registered the property on the basis of a tenant’s representation rather than an application by the Mutawalli, and did so without notifying the petitioner, who claimed to manage the family waqf.

It considered the rapid sequence from the tenant’s application through the public notice and mahazar to registration, together with the earlier civil-court findings concerning the same property, and concluded that the certificate had been issued without following Section 36’s procedure and in breach of natural justice.

Those circumstances justified entertaining the writ petition rather than relegating the petitioner to the Tribunal.

The Court also read the 1945 deed as providing for family management while lineal descendants remained available, and found that it did not establish a public waqf under the Board’s management; earlier judicial findings supported that conclusion.

It allowed the writ petition and quashed the Waqf Registration Certificate dated 28 December 2020.

The Court clarified that quashing the certificate would not affect adjudication of the parties’ rights in pending civil suits or other proceedings in accordance with law.