The Kalaburagi bench of the Karnataka Excessive Court docket has not too long ago noticed that merely substituting the title of the Wakf Board in income information wouldn’t make a property a wakf property, with no correct inquiry into it.
A single-judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj handed the order on August 6 in a case associated to a property in Karnataka’s Raichur district.
Based on the petitioner, the property in query was bought through a sale deed in 2012. The jurisdictional regional commissioner had directed the deputy commissioner to make enquiries about wakf properties and enter them into income information. On the premise of this directive, the native tahsildar had mutated the title of the Wakf Board within the information of this property.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the change in income entry, within the 2018-2019 interval, had been performed with out correct discover. The opposing counsel argued that the property was a wakf property and if it needed to be disputed, it must be earlier than the Wakf Tribunal as per Part 83 of the Waqf Act, 1995.
The bench noticed, “Deputy commissioner and tahsildar fully misconstrued the notification issued by the regional commissioner. The regional commissioner had particularly said that due enquiry needs to be made, and thereafter, entry of the title of the Wakf Board to be made, if the property was the Wakf property… With out finishing up any such enquiry, the deputy commissioner in furtherance of the notification directed his subordinate officers…. to hold out the directions.”
It additional added, “When the tahsildar has deleted the title of the petitioner and inserted the title of the Wakf Board, the property can’t be stated to be the wakf property merely by such insertion. The enquiry…not having been made, it can’t now be contended by the Wakf Board that there’s a dispute of the title as regards the property belonging to the Wakf Board… that might have been the case, if the title of the Wakf Board was all the time discovered on the information.”
The courtroom directed the petitioner’s title to be restored within the income information, whereas liberty was left to the tahsildar to conduct an inquiry on the property.
Click here to join The Indian Express on WhatsApp and get latest news and updates