C. MOHAMMED Vs. KERALA WAKF BOARD AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Appeal is preferred against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in O. P. No. 9123 of 1988 dated 13 -11 -1992. By that judgment, the Writ Petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. The point raised in this writ Appeal deals with the validity of levy of contribution under, the Wakf Act, 1954, as amended by Kerala Act,18. of 1972. The appellant - writ. petitioner is the Perumpadappu Puthanpalli Jaram, Madrassa and Hospital Paripalana Committee, Perumpadappu. This is a famous shrine in Malappuram District, in Kerala, where the remains of a muslim saint were laid to rest, and the shrine attracts large number of devotees and pilgrims from all over the country. The collection of the institution as disclosed from Ext. P1 order of the Kerala Wakf Board dated 30 -4 -1987 will give an indication of the large number of devotees and pilgrims who visit the shrine every year.. Ext. PI order shows that the income of the shrine was Rs. 20 lakhs in 1979 -80, Rs. 28 lakhs in 1980 -81, Rs. 49 lakhs in 1981 -82, Rs. 49 lakhs in 1982 -83, Rs. 53 lakhs in 1983 -84, Rs 54 lakhs in 1984 -85 and -1985 -86 and so on. The Wakf Board issued a show cause notice with regard to the collection of contribution under Section 46 and after giving opportunity to the petitioner passed Ext. PI order dated 30 -4 -1987 That order deals with various amounts, including levy of contribution on the jaram collection. The order says that jaram collections are liable for contribution. Three reasons arc given in this order. The first one is that this part of the income does not come under voluntary contributions, insmuch as every devotee has in his mind some purpose for which the offering is made in money. The second reason given was that only small amounts could be contribution, but not large amounts which amount to lakhs of rupees. The third reason is that the petitioner received auction amount from the auction purchaser for the right to collect contributions or offerings and therefore that the same cannot be treated as voluntary contribution or offering. The petitioner applied for reconsideration as per Ext.P2 representation, dated 4 -6 -1987, and it was not accepted, and a fresh demand was made on 29 -12 -1987 as per Ext.P3. Thereafter the demand notice was issued under Ext.P4 dated 14 -10 -1988 The Petitioner applied for reconsideration on 28 -10 -1988 as per Ext.P5 and the same was rejected and a fresh demand was issued as per Ext. P6 dated 4 -11 -1988 for a sum of Rs. 19,37,634.55.

(2.) QUESTIONING the above said orders Ext. P 1 and the demands, Ext. P 4 and P 6, the writ petition was filed in 1988. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ Petition. Against the said judgment, this appeal is preferred.

(3.) SECTION 3 (g) of the Central Act defines 'net annual income' as follows: