Key Takeaways
- The Karnataka HC ruled against the Waqf Board’s attempt to recall a 1976 order declaring a property in Bengaluru’s Kumbarpete area as private property.
- The Court directed the Waqf Board to seek remedies through the Karnataka Waqf Tribunal under the Waqf Act.
- The 1976 order by the Administrator has remained unchallenged for decades and cannot be recalled or reviewed arbitrarily.
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has ruled that the Karnataka State Waqf Board cannot recall an order passed by its Administrator in 1976, which declared a property in Bengaluru’s Kumbarpete area as private property, without judicial intervention.
The Court on Friday directed the Board to seek remedies through the Karnataka Waqf Tribunal under the Waqf Act.
Justice MGS Kamal, presiding over the case, quashed the Board’s decision to form a Law Committee to review the 1976 order. The petitioner, Jabir Ali Khan alias Shuja, claimed to be a descendant of the original property owner and argued that the committee’s constitution was illegal and biased.
The court underscored that the 1976 order by the Administrator had remained unchallenged for decades and noted that the Administrator had acted as the statutory authority under the Waqf Act, 1954. It held that reversing or reviewing the order required proper legal procedures.
The Waqf Board had argued that the property was listed as Waqf in 1965 but was later improperly removed from the list in 1977 following the Administrator’s declaration. The Board contended it was obliged under the Waqf Act to recover lost properties and justified the Law Committee’s role in the matter.
However, the court found no provision in the Waqf Act, 1995, that empowered the Board to recall its own orders unless fraud or misrepresentation was involved. It stated, “An order determining property rights, passed in quasi-judicial capacity, cannot be recalled or reviewed arbitrarily.”
The judgment emphasised that disputes over property character should be resolved under Sections 6 and 7 of the Waqf Act by a competent tribunal. The High Court’s decision invalidates the Board’s proceedings from March 2020 and reaffirms the necessity of legal channels for resolving such disputes.
