The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) aimed at challenging a state government circular issued in November, which prevents the registration of farmers’ and private individuals’ lands as waqf properties. This decision has raised considerable concerns regarding protecting waqf board assets amidst ongoing allegations of encroachments and land grabbing.
The petition was filed by Bengaluru resident Syed Ejaz Ahmed, who sought judicial intervention to safeguard waqf properties, claiming that approximately 91,000 acres of land across the state have fallen victim to encroachment by various parties, including politicians and land grabbers. However, the division bench, comprising Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K.V. Aravind, deemed the petition not maintainable, asserting it seemed to be motivated more by a desire for publicity than substantive legal concerns.
“The petition appears to be politically motivated or filed for publicity. The honesty of the petitioner is questionable, and there are no viable elements worthy of a hearing,” the bench remarked. Emphasizing that the November 9 notification was issued in the public interest, they reiterated that the matter fell squarely within the executive jurisdiction of the state government.
The contentious circular was issued by the concerned department of the state government, aiming to protect waqf properties and community welfare. The court explained that barring the registration of farmer and private individual lands as waqf properties should be understood within this context.
Despite dismissing essential claims, the bench initially proposed a Rs 10,000 fine against Ahmed for what they described as a frivolous petition. However, in light of arguments from the petitioner’s lawyer, Rahmat Ullah Kotwal, the decision to impose the fine was ultimately dropped.
In his argument, Kotwal cautioned that the state government’s inaction, propelled by the November circular, could have severe socioeconomic repercussions for the community. “The withdrawal of notices to encroachers of waqf properties must be revised. If this circular remains intact, it will lead to significant losses for the community and hinder their socioeconomic advancement,” Kotwal stated.
Advocate Nilofar Akbar, representing the state government, labelled the PIL as lacking substantial legal grounding, emphasising, “This is a politically motivated PIL that lacks merit and should be dismissed.”
In his plea, Ahmed requested several stringent measures to protect waqf properties. His demands included a call for an investigative committee led by retired High Court judges to assess the encroachments and provide relief measures targeting illegally occupied waqf properties. The petition specifically sought the reversal of the November circular and requested that properties acquired under the Karnataka Inam Abolition Act and the Karnataka Land Reforms Act be reallocated or compensated fairly.
“Action is needed to prevent politicization and sensational media coverage surrounding waqf properties,” the petition stated, emphasizing the need for an organized approach to reclaim what is seen as historically significant community assets.
While the court’s dismissal of the PIL may appease the state government, the ongoing allegations of encroachment and misappropriation of waqf properties highlight a deeper societal issue. Activists and community members remain vigilant as they navigate the complexities of land rights, legal obstacles, and public interest in preserving communal assets.
As embattled communities await the next steps from governmental and judicial authorities, the dialogue surrounding safeguarding waqf properties in Karnataka continues, emphasizing the need for stringent measures against what many see as an encroachment crisis.
The file missing in Waqf’s office raises suspicion
A significant scandal is brewing in Karnataka as reports emerge regarding the alleged mishandling and subsequently missing files linked to a crucial investigation into the misuse of Waqf properties. The state’s Minority Welfare Department is now at the centre of an escalating debate around these allegations, which have caught the public’s and political opposition’s attention.
The investigation report, compiled by former Upa Lokayukta N. Anand, pertained to the misuse of Waqf properties and was based on findings associated with the Anwar Manippadi report. Furthermore, the investigation was initiated during the first term of Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, who now faces accusations of federal negligence in safeguarding vital documentation related to public interests.
According to department sources, the files containing critical information regarding a reported Rs 150 crore lure case involving BJP state president B.Y. Vijayendra have inexplicably disappeared. This revelation has raised alarm bells, prompting questions about the integrity of the current administration and the transparency of investigations concerning state assets.
Records indicate that on April 28, 2014, the Minority Welfare Department dispatched these lists of files to the Minister’s Office for review and further directives. The files allegedly contained significant insights drawn from a State Minority Commission report, which had prompted cabinet approvals of certain recommendations that necessitated the Advocate General’s input for subsequent legal action.
However, the department has expressed frustration and concern over the prolonged absence of these files. Despite several formal requests to the Minister’s Office for their return, the Minority Welfare Department has been met with obfuscation. Senior officials from the department who personally visited the Minister’s Office to locate the documents returned empty-handed, underscoring a lack of accountability.
Adding to the frustration, department officials have pointed out that while there are records of the initial dispatch of the files to the Minister’s Office, there appears to be no documentation indicating their return. The lack of communication and record-keeping has led to increased speculations about the government’s motives and transparency practices.
The timing of the file’s disappearance is particularly critical, coinciding with heated discussions in the current Belagavi legislative assembly session centred around the issue of Waqf properties. Observers note that the absence of this pertinent documentation casts a long shadow over the integrity of the discussions and the state government’s commitment to addressing the contentious issue of property misuse.
Political leaders and opposition figures have begun to voice their concerns, calling for a thorough investigation into handling these files and demanding accountability from the state government. They assert that this episode highlights a broader pattern of negligence and mismanagement, suggesting that public trust in the administration is waning and that such behaviour is unacceptable in governance.
Furthermore, several activists and community leaders are urging the government to address the matter promptly and transparently, insisting that the mismanagement and potential cover-up of information related to Waqf properties must be thoroughly investigated. Many argue that the current administration must uphold its responsibilities to the public and ensure that essential files and documents are preserved and accessible for accountability.
As the minority community and civil society rally for transparency, the state government’s failure to recover and produce these files will likely stir further public scrutiny. This ongoing debacle underscores the need for a robust institutional framework that prioritizes the ethical management of sensitive information pertinent to the community’s welfare and the state’s resources.
As inquiries into this matter evolve, the political ramifications for Chief Minister Siddaramaiah and the ruling party may be substantial. With growing scepticism surrounding their management of vital public resources, the state government faces rising pressure to locate the missing files and restore faith in their commitment to transparency and responsible governance.
Comments