Bengaluru: The disputed questions concerning the identity, location, ownership, Wakf character and extent of the graveyard require oral evidence and a trial under the Wakf Act, Karnataka High Court has ruled in a recent judgement.Justice Suraj Govindaraj has made this observation while dismissing the petition filed by R Bhagyamma and her daughter KC Shashikala.The petitioners have claimed that 1 acre 12 guntas of land situated at Jarakabande Kaval, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk was owned by KS Chikkalingappa as he purchased the same in 1981. The same was converted to non-agricultural property in 1983. After Chikkalingappa’s death in 2000, the petitioners (his wife and daughter) inherited the said land and had formed a layout consisting of various sites.They challenged the corrigendum notification issued by Karnataka State Board of Wakf in July 2010, including their land as a wakf property.According to them, in the original notification issued in 1965, their property doesn’t find a place and that the inclusion of the same in the corrigendum notification issued is not valid as no proper survey was conducted before the said notification.They also sought removal of burials in the subject land and also the barring of interference by the officials.On the other hand, Karnataka State Board of Wakf argued that the land is a burial ground and that in the matter pertaining to wakf property, a writ petition is not maintainable as an alternative remedy is available before the Wakf tribunal.After perusing the materials on record, Justice Govindaraj noted that the High Court holds constitutional jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to examine the questions raised.At the same time, the dispute concerning the nature and character of the subject property and the reliefs dependent upon it fall within the jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal, the judge added. Seeking removal of burials and restraint against respondents likewise depend on proof of ownership, possession and the identity of the land. They cannot follow merely from quashing the corrigendum. An order for removal of graves before determination of rights would be irreversible if made wrongly, the judge further added while granting liberty to the petitioners to move the Wakf tribunal for a suitable remedy.
