KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD Vs. APPELLATE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 29.5.2008. The appellant in these appeals is the writ petitioner in the Writ Petitions. Brief facts that led to filing of the present appeals pertinent to be mentioned here, in order to understand the specific stand of the parties are as under:

(2.) According to the appellants, 81 cents of land in R.S. No. 2/3 of Chelora Amsom Desom, Kannur originally belonged to Manayakandi Puthiyapurayil Mammikutty Haji of Koodali Amsom, Kottayam Taluk. He said to have created a Wakf of the property in favour of Vattapoyil Niskara Palli (Mamba-Ul-Islam) as per document No. 17/1924 dated 18.7.1924. The local committee Mamba-Ul-Islam situated at Vattapoyil, Kannur District is a Wakf registered before the Kerala State Wakf Board. Originally, name of the Wakf was "Vattapoyil Niskara Palli" and later, the name was changed as "Mamba-Ul-Islam Committee".

(3.) According to the writ petitioner, husband of the third respondent by name one Aboobacker Haji had obtained a purchase certificate in respect of the said property in a proceedings before the Land Tribunal, Edakkad on 21.5.1975 vide purchase certificate No. 161/1975 in O.S. No. 771/1973. Third respondent is the legal heir of said Aboobacker Haji, as he is no more as on the date of filing of the Writ Petitions. According to the writ petitioner, Aboobacker Haji, during his life time said to have obtained a purchase certificate suppressing the material facts before the Land Tribunal that the property in question actually is a Wakf property and the entire proceedings are void ab-initio for non compliance of procedure contemplated under Section 90(1) of the Wakf Act. According to them, they have approached with a petition under sub-section (3) of Section 90 of the Wakf Act before the second respondent-Tahsildar, who is the Land Tribunal, to declare the order in O.A. No. 771/1973 as null and void. The petition came to be rejected by the second respondent- Tribunal holding that the remedy open to them was to approach the appellate authority. The said order of the Tribunal came to be challenged in A.A. No. 41/06 before the appellate authority. It is pertinent to mention that the order issuing purchase certificate never came to be challenged before the appellate authority, but it is only an order of rejection of the petition filed by the writ petitioner that came to be challenged before the appellate authority. The appellate authority in its order dated 19.12.2007 dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay. Aggrieved by the same, challenging the said orders of the Tribunal and the appellate authority at Exhibits P2 and P5 respectively as perverse orders issued without following the procedure contemplated under the Statute, the present Writ Petitions came to be filed. The main contention before the learned Single Judge was also with regard to Section 90(3) of the Wakf Act.