The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the inclusion of 1 acre 12 guntas of land in Jarakabande Kaval, Yelahanka Hobli, in a Wakf property notification, holding that disputes over the land’s identity, ownership, location, extent and alleged graveyard status require oral evidence and a trial under the Wakf Act.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj ruled that the petitioners could approach the Wakf Tribunal for an appropriate remedy. The judgment concerns a property that the petitioners say was privately acquired, converted for non-agricultural use and later developed into a layout, while the Karnataka State Board of Wakf maintains that it is a burial ground.
The petition was filed by R Bhagyamma and her daughter KC Shashikala. They claimed that KS Chikkalingappa purchased the land in 1981 and that it was converted to non-agricultural property in 1983. After Chikkalingappa’s death in 2000, the petitioners, identified as his wife and daughter, said they inherited the land and formed a layout containing various sites.
Their challenge was directed at a corrigendum notification issued by the Karnataka State Board of Wakf in July 2010. According to the petitioners, the property was not included in the original notification issued in 1965 and was added later without a proper survey. They sought removal of burials from the land and an order restraining officials from interfering with the property.
The Wakf Board opposed the petition, arguing that the land was a burial ground and that the petition was not maintainable because an alternative remedy was available before the Wakf Tribunal. The High Court noted that it retains constitutional jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 to examine the questions raised, but held that the central dispute fell within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
The court said that determining the nature and character of the property, as well as the reliefs sought by the petitioners, would depend on proof of ownership, possession and the identity of the land. The requests to remove burials and restrain the respondents could not follow merely from quashing the corrigendum notification, the court held.
The judgment also highlighted the consequences of acting before the underlying rights are determined. An order removing graves could be irreversible if issued incorrectly, Justice Govindaraj observed. The petitioners have therefore been given liberty to move the Wakf Tribunal for suitable relief, where the disputed facts can be examined through evidence and trial.
