ABDUL KAREEM Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioners are the appellants. The writ petitioners, who claim to be the beneficiaries of the Wakf, filed the Writ Petition challenging the action of respondents 1 to 4 in the Writ Petition in initiating proceedings for acquisition and construction of Karingalchira bridge and road through the property situated in Sy.Nos.336/7 -1, 336/ -2 & 4 in Puthenchira Village. It is claimed by the writ petitioners that the above property is Wakf property and no notice has been issued in terms of Section 91 of the Wakf Act, 1995 before the property being acquired by the District Collector. Section 91 of the Wakf Act contemplates issuance of notice to the Kerala State Wakf Board before acquisition of a Wakf property. Before the learned single Judge a counter statement has been filed by the fourth respondent. It is stated in the counter statement that the Mahallu Committee has taken a decision pursuant to the General Body convened and based on the decision of the General Body, the property having an extent of 1.50 cents of land was relinquished in favour of the Government in terms of the Kerala Land Relinquishment Act and the relevant provisions. Along with the statement, relinquishment letter executed by the President and Vice President and the land relinquishment form etc. have been produced. It is based on such relinquishment in the year 2010, the work relating to construction of the bridge and road was started. It is further stated that the work commenced in the year 2011.

(2.) THE learned single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition on 15.1.2014. It was observed that if the relinquishment made by the Committee was not proper, it was open for the aggrieved party to challenge before the appropriate forum then and there. Challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge, this Writ Appeal is filed by the writ petitioners.

(3.) THE third respondent also has filed an affidavit in the Writ Appeal. It is stated in the affidavit that out of the three bridges, two of the culverts are completed and the foundation of the third culvert has already been completed. It is also stated that the distance between the mosque and the proposed road is 8.9 metres on the western side and 7.9 metres on the eastern side. The allegation in the Writ Petition that there is no land available in between the mosque and the road is also denied in the affidavit. We do not think it appropriate to look into those factual aspects because of the reason that the work initiated by the Government is based on the relinquishment of the land in favour of the Government. The property is now, according to the Government, vested with the Government under the Kerala Land Relinquishment Act. Then the question to be decided is whether the relinquishment is bad or not. It cannot be a matter which could be enquired through the proceedings initiated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If the petitioners have any grievance against the relinquishment of land in favour of the Government, they have had statutory remedies in terms of the provisions under the Kerala Land Relinquishment Act. If the petitioners have a case that it is a Wakf property, they have further remedies in terms of the Wakf Act. The questions raised in the Writ Petition cannot be decided in a proceeding initiated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We also notice that the petitioners have not chosen to array the Muthavally (Committee) of the alleged Wakf who are interested in the administration of the land in question. We do not find any reason to interfere with the action of the official respondents. We also notice that the relinquishment was in the year 2010 and commencement of the work in question was in the year 2011, going by the averments in the counter statement and the affidavit filed. We do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment rendered by the learned single Judge. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed.