MIRZA HABIB AGA Vs. KARNATAKA BOARD OF WAKFS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) petitioner is one mirza habib aga, who admittedly is the son of 2nd respondent mrs. Malak sultana, petitioner is aggrieved by the order as at Annexure-J passed by the first respondent Karnataka wakf board. The order is dated 24/4/1989. He has therefore prayed in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of certiorari quashing the order at Annexure-J as well as an earlier order at Annexure-G .

(2.) at this stage itself I may mention theprayers are in contradiction with each other. If Annexure-G is quashed, then there was no need for the proceedings resulting in Annexure-J . This fact should be borne in mind while disposing of the case of the petitioner.

(3.) the facts may be stated briefly andwhich are not in dispute are as follows :- by an application dated 12/12/1980 the 2nd respondent mrs. Malak sultana moved the first respondent wakf board to treat property bearing No. 5 (old No. 1), kingston road, richmond town, Bangalore, as wakf property belonging to aga abdul hussain akbarabad shia wakf. By an order dated 10/3/1988 her application was allowed and the property aforementioned was treated as wakf property and it was directed to be entered in the register of wakfs as such. On 25/1/1989 one govindaram k. Kukreja and others, who are respondents 3 to 8 herein, moved the wakf board praying for recalling the order dated 10/3/1988 directing registration of premises No. 1, kingston road, richmond town, Bangalore, as a wakf property interalia on the ground that the said order was passed without notice to all the aggrieved parties and on the misrepresentation of facts ignoring undisputed facts of the property in question having vested in the central government in as far back as 1949 under the Provisions of the evacue properties act. That application has come to be allowed by the wakf board resulting in Annexure-J the order complained of. Annexure-G was an application made by the petitioner to implead himself in the proceedings commenced by the application of govindaram and others. By that order the first respondent rejected the impleading application.