M. M. MIRDHE, J. ( 1 ) OF wakf praying to declare the order at Annexure-D passed by the land tribunal, belgaum as illegal and direct the 1st respondent to make the petitioner as a party and after issuing notice and after holding enquiry according to law to pass appropriate orders. ( 2 ) I have heard Sri h. b. datar, learned counsel for the petitioner i. e. , Karnataka board of wakf, additional government pleader for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri vijaya shankar, learned counsel for respondents 3 (b) to 3 (h) fully and perused the records of the case. ( 3 ) RESPONDENT 3 filed form No. 7 claiming occupancy rights insurvey nos. 241/a and 241/b of belgaum. He made sherkhan masjid represented by wahivatdar yasin khan and others as opponents. The tribunal by its order dated 26-10-1976 allowed the application filed by respondent 3 and granted occupancy rights in favour of respondent 3 in respect of survey No. 241/a. Respondents 3 (a) to 3 (h) are the legal representatives of respondent 3 who have come on record * after the death of respondent 3. ( 4 ) SHERKHAN jumma masjid filed a writ petition in writ petition No. 18158 of 1989. That writ petition came to be dismissed on the memo filed by the Advocate for the petitioner i. e. , m. m. sawkar to the effect that the petitioner was not pressing that writ petition and it may be dismissed as withdrawn as the parties had compromised their case. ( 5 ) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition in the year 1993. The learned single judge who heard the writ petition dismissed the same on the ground that this petitioner had already filed writ petition in writ petition No. 18158 of 1989. The petitioner preferred writ appeal in writ appeal No. 569 of 1996. The division bench held that the learned single judge was not right in dismissing the writ petition or the ground of res judicata and remanded the matter for fresh disposal. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised following contentions. They are as follows: (1) that the order of the division bench is to the effect that the matter should be heard on merits and therefore the question of laches on the part of the petitioner cannot be a ground for this court to dismiss this writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised following contentions. They are as follows: (1) that the order of the division bench is to the effect that the matter should be heard on merits and therefore the question of laches on the part of the petitioner cannot be a ground for this court to dismiss this writ petition. (2) in view of the Provisions of Section 36-a of the Wakf Act, no occupancy rights can be granted to property which is a wakf property. (3) wakf board was not made a party and this order has been passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the wakf board. (4) that the land in question has become an urban property and it is no longer an agricultural property. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel - for the contesting respondent submitted that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not sustainable in law. The learned counsel for the contesting respondent has submitted that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches on the part of the petitioner. The earlier order passed by the learned single judge dismissing this writ petition was on the ground that this very petitioner has filed previous writ petition No. 18158 of 1989. But that was not a correct statement of fact. In fact, Karnataka wakf board had not filed that previous writ petition. It is sherkhan jumma masjid, belgaum who had filed that writ petition. The division bench of this court in the appeal filed by this petitioner in writ appeal No. 569 of 1996 has held that the learned single judge could not have dismissed this writ petition on the ground of res judicata and it has further observed that the order of the learned single judge was liable to be set aside and the matter is required to be remitted to the learned single judge for fresh disposal on merits. The ground on which the order of the learned single judge came to be set aside by the division bench was that there was no question of this writ petition being barred by res judicata as the present petitioner had not filed the previous. writ petition. The learned single judge had not considered the question of laches in the previous order. writ petition. The learned single judge had not considered the question of laches in the previous order. The division bench also has not bestowed its attention on laches now raised by the learned counsel for the contesting respondents. The division bench has stated that matter is required to be remitted to the learned single judge for disposal on merits. That does not mean that the court is precluded from considering the question of laches. Therefore, the order of the division bench will not come in the way of this court to see whether the petitioner is guilty of laches in this case and whether this writ petition is liable to be dismissed on that ground. ( 7 ) IN previous writ petition filed by sherkhan jumma masjid in writ petition No. 18158 of 1989 in para 6 it had averred as follows:"the petitioner was not aware of the land tribunal order since the respondent have deliberately suppressed the real owner before the land tribunal. And it is also further submitted that the land tribunal has also not made any efforts to issue notice to the wakf. The petitioner came to know the order of the land tribunal recently and this was brought to the knowledge of the wakf board in order to take appropriate steps as he is met with injustice. After realising the things the wakf board has also given sanction by way of official memorandum to the chief trustee, to initiate or to take action under the available forum in respect of grant of occupancy rights in favour of third respondent. The petitioner herein produces the order of the land tribunal and also the sanction given by the wakf board as annexures-a and b". Annexure-B is the copy of the official memorandum of the petitioner giving permission to sherkhan jumma masjid for filing suit and writ petition. In view of the averment in the previous writ petition made by sherkhan jumma masjid and the copy of the official memorandum produced at Annexure-B in that writ petition inference that arises is that the wakf board had knowledge of the order of the land tribunal passed in the year 1976. Though the wakf board had the knowledge of this order in the year 1989 itself it did not choose to challenge this order either by way of independent writ petition filed by it till the year 1993. Though the wakf board had the knowledge of this order in the year 1989 itself it did not choose to challenge this order either by way of independent writ petition filed by it till the year 1993. Therefore, there are laches on the part of the petitioner in filing this writ petition. ( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner had the knowledge of this impugned order in the year 1989 and it did not challenge that order till 1993 still the petitioner cannot be held to be guilty of laches because the sherkhan jumma masjid could not have compromised the writ petition without the previous permission of the Karnataka wakf board as per the Provisions of Section 60 of the Wakf Act, 1954. It cannot be disputed now that the wakf board had the knowledge of this order in the year 1989 itself. Still it did not choose to challenge it by way of writ petition on its own. It gave permission to sherkhan jumma masjid to file that writ petition and it came to be filed by sherkhan jumma masjid and that writ petition came to be dismissed on 6-12-1989, on the ground that the matter was compromised. Wakf board was required to be in touch with the proceedings that were started in pursuance of the permission granted by it by official memorandum. There also it is guilty of laches because till 1993 it has not cared to find out what had happened to the writ petition filed by sherkhan jumma masjid in pursuance of the permission granted by it by official memorandum. Hence, the petitioner is clearly guilty of laches and on that ground itself this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. ( 9 ) THE second contention that is taken up by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Provisions of the Land Reforms Act will not apply to the properties that are registered as wakf properties. The record produced by the petitioner would show that the lands in question were registered as the property of sherkhan jumma masjid under the Provisions of the Bombay public Trust Act and after coming into force of the Wakf Act also they were shown as the property of that mosque in the registry of Karnataka wakf board. The record produced by the petitioner would show that the lands in question were registered as the property of sherkhan jumma masjid under the Provisions of the Bombay public Trust Act and after coming into force of the Wakf Act also they were shown as the property of that mosque in the registry of Karnataka wakf board. As per Section 36-a (ii) of the Wakf Act, 1954, no lease of the property can be granted exceeding more than three years for a land belonging to a wakf institution without the prior permission or sanction of the Karnataka wakf board. Section 138-k of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act lays down that the Act, that is, Karnataka Land Reforms Act and any Rule, order or notification made or issued thereunder shall have the effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other enactment with respect to matters enumerated in list ii and list iii of the seventh schedule to the Constitution of India or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any such other enactment. In view of this clear Provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, this act prevails over the Provisions of Section 36-a (ii) of the Wakf Act. As per Karnataka Land Reforms Act there are certain exemptions granted under chapter viii and if those Provisions are perused the lands belonging to wakf institutions are not granted any exemptions. Therefore, it is difficult to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the Provisions of the Wakf Act no occupancy rights can be granted to the land belonging to wakf institutions. ( 10 ) THE other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the wakf board was not made a party and the land have ceased to be an agricultural lands. The wakf board ought to have taken up this contention at the earliest point of time. Though it had the knowledge of the order in the year 1989, it had not cared to challenge the order till 1993. ( 11 ) IN view of the foregoing reasons, I am of the opinion that there are no grounds to allow this writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. --- *** --- .