KARNATAKA WAKF BOARD versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR.

Citation: [2003] 3 S.C.R. 1019 · Decided: 30-04-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

KARNATAKA WAKF BOARD 
V. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR. 
APRIL 30, 2003 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU, K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND 
G.P. MATHUR, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Wakf Act, 1954-Section 6 and Explanation to Section 6(/)-Dispute 
regarding Wakf property-Suit by third party claiming independent title over C 
property after period of limitation-Maintainability of-Plea by Wakf Board 
that suit not maintainable bf'ing time barred-Subsequent addition of 
Explanation to Section 6(/)-lncluding third party as person interested in the 
Wakf-Held, as explanation to section 6(1) operates against third party only 
after its insertion, inhibition under proviso to Section 6 regarding the period 
of limitation not applicable to them when they filed suits since they cannot be D 
construed as person inlerested in the Wakf-Hence suits maintainable. 
By notification certain properties were included as an item in Wakf 
property. Respondents-third party to the Wakf property filed suits in 1981 
claiming title over the property and challenged the notification. Trial court 
uphel~ their claim. Aggril!\'ed appellant-Wakf Board filed an appeal. They E 
contended that suit being time barred was not maintainable. High Court 
dismissed the same. Hence the present appeal .. 
Appellant contended that the suits having been filed after a period 
of one year were not maintainable and they were barred by time. 
F 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. Under Section 6 of the Wakf Act, 1954 it is stated that if 
any question arises as to whether a particular property specified as Wakf 
property in the list of Wakfs published under sub-section (2) of Section 5 G 
is Wakf property or not, or whether the Wakf specified therein is 'Shia' 
Wakf or 'Sunni' Wakf, the Board, or the Muttawalli, or any person 
interested therein may institute a suit in a civil court within a period of 
· one year and the decision of the civil court shall be final. (1025-G, HI 
1019 
H 
1020 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2003] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
1.2. It is pertinent to note that by Act 69 of 1984, Explanation to 
Section 6(1) was added. The Explanation is to the effect that the expression 
'any person interested therein', occurring in sub-section (1) of Section 6 
and in sub-section (1) of Section 6-A, shall, in relation to a property 
specified as Wakf property in the list of Wakfs published, include every 
B person who, though not interested in the Wakf concerned, is interested in 
such property and to whom a reasonable opportunity had been afforded 
to represent his case by notice served on him in that behalf during the 
course of the rekvant inquiry. At the time when respondents filed the suits, 
they were strangers and they were not interested in the Wakf as such. The 
Explanation added to Section 6(1) can operate against them only after the 
C 
insertion of the same in Section 6 of the Act. Prior to the insertion of the 
Explanation, a third party claiming independent title over a property, 
which is illegally included as Wakf property was entitled to file a suit within 
the period provided for under the Law of Limitation'. Therefore, the 
inhibition provided under proviso to Section 6 regarding the period of 
limitation was not applicable to the respondents at the time when they filed 
D the suits. (1026-B-Df 
1.3. The plea that the suits having been filed after a period of one 
year were not maintainable and they were barred by time was rightly not 
accepted by the High Court, as respondents in both these suits cannot be 
E construed as 'persons interested in the Wakr. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 16897 of 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated I 0.3.1995 of the Karanataka High 
F Court in R.F.A. No. 541 of 1986. 
WITH 
(C.A. No. 16898 of 1996) 
G 
Salman Khurshid, Javed A. Warsi, Zaki Ahmed and lrshad Ahmad for 
the Appellant. 
Sanjay R. Hegde, Satya Mitra, G.V. Chandrasekhar for P.P. Singh, S. 
Wasim Qadri, Anil Katiyar, and Ms. Sushma Suri, for the Respondents. 
H 
The Judgment of the Cburt was delivered by 
KARNATAKA WAKF BOARD v. STATE [ K.G. BALAKRISHNAN. J.] I 021 
K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, J. Both these appeals raise common A 
questionsof law; hence they were heard jointly and are being disposed of by 
a common judgment. Under Section 4 of the Wakf Act, 1954, the Survey 
Commissioner of the State ofKarnataka conducted a survey ofWakfproperties 
existing in the State of Kamataka. After the survey was over, a list of properties 
ofWakfwas prepared under Section (5) of the Act and

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.