ORDER : V SRISHANANDA, J. 1. Heard Sri. Tajuddin, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri. Anand Kumar for Sri. P.S. Malipatil, counsel for respondent No.3. Sri. Haneef M.H., learned counsel for respondent No.1 absent. Respondent No.2 - Officer of the Waqf, District Waqf Office Shivamogga served and unrepresented. 2. Revision petitioner Sri Janab Shabbir filed an appeal before the Waqf Tribunal, Bengaluru in Appeal No.2/2019, challenging the Order No. KTW/BLLS/116/SMG/2009-10, dated 11.07.2014 as is mentioned in Gazette Notification No.MWB/19(3) dated 23.02.1965 notified at serial numbers 425/ 426/ 427/ 428/ 429/ 430/ 431 and 452 in respect of the land measuring 15-00 acres in Sy.No.49 of Aralikoppa Village, Sagar Taluk, Shivamogga District. 3. The appeal was admittedly a belated appeal and therefore filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of in filing the appeal. 4. In para 6 of the affidavit, in support of application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the appellant has contended that he came to know about the notification and the Order on 01.02.2019, wherein appellant was called over telephone by somebody and informed about the Order and he was confined to a room and forcefully obtained his signature on some papers and therefore, from the date of knowledge the appeal filed on 04.02.2019 is well within time and thus sought for condoning the delay of more than four years in entertaining the appeal. 5. Notice of the appeal was issued to the respondents. First respondent namely the Karnataka State Board of Wakfs contested the matter by contending that in view of the Notification issued on 11.07.2014 as referred to supra, the petitioner was required to challenge the same within 60 days as per Section 69(3) of the Waqf Act and beyond that time, the appeal need not be entertained. 6. Learned Trial Judge heard the arguments of the parties on the application, dismissed the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in the impugned Order, holding in paragraphs No.19 to 29 as under: 19) Admittedly Under Section 69 the order can be So when the order is challenged within sixty days. challenged after four years, the delay has to be explained. 20) Another thing to be noted is that the strong allegation are made against Respondent No.3 that fraud has been committed and signature of the Appellant is forged. challenged after four years, the delay has to be explained. 20) Another thing to be noted is that the strong allegation are made against Respondent No.3 that fraud has been committed and signature of the Appellant is forged. In my opinion if such allegations are made it is up to the party to prove such fraud and forgery with cogent evidence. Mere allegation is not sufficient to believe the contention of the Appellant. 21) The contention is taken by the Appellant is that, inclusion of the Sy No.49 was informed on 01.02.2019 on phone. In my opinion this explanation is made only to get the case within the limitation period. 22) Another contention is that without informing the appellant, the properties included to the scheme. But the property so included is gazette Notified property, as back as in the year 1965. At one stretch appellant contend that he became muthavalli after 11.03.1994, on death of his father. For this there are no documentary evidence. Admittedly there would have been order by the KSBA. Looking from any angle the contention as to no knowledge of the inclusion of the property in the scheme of administration cannot be accepted. So under such circumstances the question of condonation of delay does not arise. 23) The learned advocate for the respondent has drawn the attention of the court, wherein the Appellant is relying on the Gazette Notification of 1965 to contend that property belong to the Appellant. As could be seen from the records, the suit property has been notified as Waqf Property as back as in the year 1965. So, under such circumstances the appellant cannot contend that, the Suit property is belong exclusively to the Muthuvalli. 24) The learned Advocate has contended that kabrasthan and Dargah were managed by Appellant family and in this regard has produced the documents, wherein Maharaja of Mysore has made grant for the time being for Jamia Masjid over the property. This document shows that there was some grant made to the manager of the Jamia Masjid. In my opinion this does not show hereditary right of muthuvalli. Further in the year 1965 when the property is notified, the suit schedule property has become Waqf Property. So, under such circumstances the Appellant cannot claim exclusive right over the suit schedule property. when the scheme of Administration is introduced, the committee has been formed. In my opinion this does not show hereditary right of muthuvalli. Further in the year 1965 when the property is notified, the suit schedule property has become Waqf Property. So, under such circumstances the Appellant cannot claim exclusive right over the suit schedule property. when the scheme of Administration is introduced, the committee has been formed. So, under such circumstances the appellant cannot claim hereditary muthuvalli-ship over the institution. 25) To prove hereditary right of Muthuvalli appellant has to file a suit and prove his contention with cogent evidence. The appellant cannot file the objections and appeal and come up with contention of hereditary muthuvalli-ship. 26) The learned counsel for the Appellant has drawn the attention of the court to the documents wherein Sundal and Urs have been performed. This would not give any right to the Appellants to claim exclusive right over the suit schedule property and the Waqf Institution. 27) In the written arguments filed by the Appellant the allegations have been made that Respondent No.3 stealthily got entered suit property in the scheme of administration. In my opinion the contention of the appellant cannot be accepted. So, looking from any angle the averments of the appellant are not supported by document which would throw light on the contention of the Appellant. The documents such as conducting Urs and sandal, taking permission from the Police and other authority by the Appellant, cannot be the base to consider hereditary muthuvalli-ship of the Appellant. 28) The Respondent has contended that there is no order of appointment in favor of the Appellant as muthuvalli of the Jamia Masjid. Unless the Appellant files the suit for declaration to prove as to his rights, he cannot claim hereditary muthuvalliship. In my opinion the line of argument of the Respondent is quite correct. The hereditary muthuvalli-ship is to be proved by filing the suit and by producing the cogent evidence. So, under circumstances just because objections have been raised by the Appellant, his claim cannot be entertained. 29) The learned advocate for the Respondent also brought to the notice that the committee is constituted in the year 2016 and said committee has not been challenged. So, when there is committee, the appellant cannot claim hereditary muthuvalli-ship. 7. So, under circumstances just because objections have been raised by the Appellant, his claim cannot be entertained. 29) The learned advocate for the Respondent also brought to the notice that the committee is constituted in the year 2016 and said committee has not been challenged. So, when there is committee, the appellant cannot claim hereditary muthuvalli-ship. 7. Being aggrieved by the same, appellant is before this Court in this revision on the following grounds: The Impugned order of Wakf Tribunal passed in Appeal No 02/2019 dated 30-04-2021 dismissing the application filed under Section 5 of limitation Act to condone the delay in approaching before the Wakf Tribunal Bangalore Dn on 01-02-2019 over phone calling for meeting at 3 clock and threatening the petitioner to cooperate with third respondent or else he will be sent to jail and will also be deal with him in the police station to teach him a lesson this aspect of the matter was a shocking news which the 3rd respondent has managed to got included the entire management of the Wakf property in their hands under threat and coercion against the Sec 69(1) Wakf Act 1995 which aspect of the submission was not at all considered by the Wakf Tribunal IA filed by the petitioner came to be rejected consequently the appeal also came to be dismissed as per Annexure A. The further Impugned notification of the scheme of Administration obtained secretly by the 3rd respondent the whole property so it was managed by the property got included as per Annexure C without the authority of law which is bound to go and it is to be ordered to be deleted the subject matter of property vide Annexure C. MWB/19(3) dated 23-2-1965 notified at serial numbers 425/426/427/428/429/430/431 and 452 measuring 15 acres in Sy.No 49 of Aralikoppa village (khabrastan), Sagar town, Sagar Shimoga district this property got approved for the approval of scheme of administration vide order No: KTW/BLS/116/SMG. 2009-10 dated 11-7- 2014 that the said above suit property is to be ordered to be deleted from the scheme of Administration of the 3rd respondent and is to be restored back to be taken over under the management of the petitioner as before. 2009-10 dated 11-7- 2014 that the said above suit property is to be ordered to be deleted from the scheme of Administration of the 3rd respondent and is to be restored back to be taken over under the management of the petitioner as before. The Wakf Tribunal has utterly failed to look into the ground relatiies how the fraudulent game plan was hatched out to include the property under the direct management of petitioner which is said to be exparte order so acquired by the 3rd respondent in order to take control of the management of the wakf property which is being managed by the petitioner infact the 3rd respondent management has no locus standi to get included the said property without the authority of law which is bound to go and is to be firstly order of Tribunal is to be set aside the property included exparty by the third party is to be ordered to be restored back under the management by the petitioner who are all rendering their services without their being any complaint against them whereas the third respondent committee was removed and there are lot of complaints against the said third respondent committee members of mismanagement of funds and they were all hanging in the Tribunal cases as such the act of the third respondent is to be declared as illegal and wrong without the authority of law. The order of Tribunal Annexure A and inclusion of the property under the management of petitioner which is wrongly included by the third respondent is to be restored back to the management by the petitioner since the exparty inclusion of the entire property under management to third respondent is not sustainable in law who has taken the matter by surprise by fraudulent act of the mischief game by the third respondent is to be restored back to the management by the petitioner. Hence the entire order of the Tribunal is also to be set aside the Tribunal order blowing hot and cold at the same rejecting the application on the grounds of limitation and dismissing the Appeal which is incorrect. 8. Sri. Hence the entire order of the Tribunal is also to be set aside the Tribunal order blowing hot and cold at the same rejecting the application on the grounds of limitation and dismissing the Appeal which is incorrect. 8. Sri. Tajuddin, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, vehemently contented that the approach of the Trial Court without affording the opportunity for the parties to lead evidence and without holding enquiry under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, dismissing the application based on the arguments addressed by the parties has resulted in miscarriage of justice. 9. He would further contend that petitioner is a hereditary Mutawalli for the Jamia Masjid situated in Aralikoppa Village, Sagar Taluk and therefore there was no scope for appointment of Committee to manage the Waqf as per the Notification dated 11.07.2014 referred to supra and thus sought for allowing the revision petition. 10. He would also contend that the Mutawalliship granted to the ancestors of the petitioner is recognized by King of Mysore. Therefore, the Notification dated 11.07.2014 referred to supra has no application insofar as the hereditary mutawalli-ship of the petitioner and thus sought for allowing the revision petition. 11. Per contra, Sri. Anand Kumar, learned counsel for third respondent supports the impugned Order by contending that as per Section 69(3) of the Waqf Act, 1995, if any person is aggrieved by the notification, he has to file a suit under Section No.32(3) before the Waqf Tribunal and not an appeal and therefore, the appeal itself was not maintainable. 12. He would also contend that as per Sub-Rule 33 of Rule 2 of Karnataka Waqf Rules 2017, the functions of Mutawalli are to be assigned from time to time. For ready reference, Section 69(3) of the Waqf Act, subsection 3 of Section 32 of the Waqf Act and Sub-Rule 33 of Rule 2 of Karnataka Waqf Rules are culled out hereunder : Section 69(3) - 69. For ready reference, Section 69(3) of the Waqf Act, subsection 3 of Section 32 of the Waqf Act and Sub-Rule 33 of Rule 2 of Karnataka Waqf Rules are culled out hereunder : Section 69(3) - 69. Power of Board to frame scheme for administration of waqf - (3) Every order made under sub-section (2) shall be published in the prescribed manner, and, on such publication shall be final and binding on the mutawalli, and all persons interested in the waqf: Provided that any person aggrieved by an order made under this section may, within sixty days from the date of the order, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal and after hearing such appeal, the Tribunal may confirm, reverse or modify the order: Provided further that the Tribunal shall have no power to stay the operation of the order made under this section. subsection 3 of Section 32 32. Powers and functions of the Board - (3) Where the Board has settled any scheme of management under clause (d) or given any direction under clause (e) of sub-section (2), any person interested in the 1 [waqf] or affected by such settlement or direction may institute a suit in a Tribunal for setting aside such settlement or directions and the decision of the Tribunal thereon shall be final. Sub-Rule 33 of Rule 2 (xxxiii) - “Muzawar” means a person appointed by the Sajjada Nasheen or Mutawalli in respect of Dargah, Ashoorkhana or a shrine to discharge the functions assigned to him from time to time; 13. In the light of above provisions and the arguments put-forth on behalf of the parties, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 14. On such perusal of the material on record as is contented by Sri Anand Kumar, there is sufficient force that whether the very appeal is maintainable or not. 15. Likewise, to establish that hereditary Mutawalli, prima facie no documents were placed before the Trial Court. 16. However, the Interlocutory application -I.A.No.1/2025 is filed by the counsel for the petitioner today with additional documents are placed on record, with a copy to the other side. 17. 15. Likewise, to establish that hereditary Mutawalli, prima facie no documents were placed before the Trial Court. 16. However, the Interlocutory application -I.A.No.1/2025 is filed by the counsel for the petitioner today with additional documents are placed on record, with a copy to the other side. 17. But on perusal of the impugned order, it is noticed that when there is a huge delay of more than four years and the same was sought to be objected by the third respondent who was first respondent before the Trial Court, the proper course for the Presiding Officer of the Waqf Tribunal was to hold an enquiry on the application seeking condonation of delay. Instead, the learned Trial Judge heard the arguments of the parties based on the on objection statement, proceeded to decide the application and dismissed the same. 18. Whenever there is a dispute with regard to the factual aspect especially when the petitioner has maintained that he was not aware of the publication dated 11.07.2014 and only on 01.02.2019 he was informed about telephone, about the Notification and he was confined to the room, an enquiry was utmost necessary to find out the veracity of the Affidavit contents which was filed in support of application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking coordination of delay. 19. On close reading of the language employed under Section 69(3) of the Waqf Act, 1995, any challenge to the notification etc. is to be made within 60 days from the date of publication that is on or before 11.09.2014 in the case on hand. 20. However, the language employed in the said provision would not contemplate the exclusion of power of the Tribunal in condoning the delay in a given case. 21. Therefore, before arriving at a finding that the sufficient cause explained in Section in the application and affidavit filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the learned Presiding Officer of the Waqf Tribunal was required to hold an enquiry. 22. More so, when the Presiding Officer was deciding the condonation of huge delay of more than four years which was controverted by the third respondent. 23. Without holding an enquiry and opportunity for the parties, dismissing the application based on the contents of the affidavit and the objection statement in the considered opinion of this Court has resulted in miscarriage of justice. 24. 23. Without holding an enquiry and opportunity for the parties, dismissing the application based on the contents of the affidavit and the objection statement in the considered opinion of this Court has resulted in miscarriage of justice. 24. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that matter requires to be re-adjudicated by the Tribunal on application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 25. Accordingly, the following Order: ORDER (i) Civil Revision Petition is allowed on payment of Rs.10,000/- payable to the third respondent by the petitioner. (ii) Impugned order No.KTW/BLLS/116/SMG/2009-10, dated 11.07.2014 is hereby set-aside. (iii) Matter is remitted to the Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law on I.A. filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for seeking condonation of delay. (iv) All contentions kept open to be urged including the maintainability of the appeal. (v) Parties shall appear before the Tribunal without further notice on 13.01.2026 (vi) Payment of cost is condition precedent for further participation. (vii) Pending applications are consigned to records.