SAIDU MOHAMMED S/O. KIZHAKKEKARA ALI Vs. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the captioned revision petition filed under Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act, 1995, the revision petitioner mounts challenge against the judgment dated 03.01.2014 in W.O.A.No. 5/2010 of the Wakf Tribunal, Ernakulam whereby the Tribunal had declined to interefere with the order dated 24.12.2009 in proceedings No. E4-387/09/A passed by the Chief Executive Officer of the Kerala Wakf Board. The facts in a nutshell that culminated in the aforesaid order and the impugned judgment, are as follows:-

(2.) The revision petitioner, as also the 3rd respondent are members of the Padamugal Muslim Jama-ath, which is admittedly a Wakf registered with the Kerala State Wakf Board. Its properties are also registered with the Board and incorporated in its Register. The 3rd respondent filed an application, alleging unauthorised alienation of several valuable properties belonging to the said Wakf as also encroachment of several of its properties by a third party, before the 1st respondent. On its receipt, invoking the power under Section 54 of the Wakf Act, 1995, the 1st respondent issued notice to the revision petitioner herein, who allegedly encroached upon an extent of 7 cents, in Survey No. 92/3(re. Sy. No. 310/9) of Vazhakkala Village, of the Wakf. The revision petitioner entered appearance and filed a counter affidavit. Evidently, he took up the following contentions before the Executive Officer even while admitting the dedication of the aforesaid property by late Haji Pareed Pillai, his grandfather, as per Wakf Deed No. 2048/1118:- Even after the dedication, the Wakif retained the possession of the properties as a cultivating tenant. Later, the father of the revision petitioner became the tenant of the Jama-ath and on his death, the petitioner became the cultivating tenant as regards the property in question. The scheduled property was surrounded by properties belonging to the revision petitioner having an extent of 41 cents in Survey No. 93/2 of the same village. There was no access to the said scheduled property. In the year 1987, the Jama-ath had started construction of a new mosque. Its general body took a decision to sell its properties, then under lease, including the property in question leased out to the revision petitioner, in a bid to raise funds therefor. The Jama-ath insisted the revision petitioner to purchase the land and he purchased the land by paying a sale consideration of Rs. 8,750/-. Though the Jama-ath received the said amount, it did not execute the sale deed till date. In the meanwhile, after effecting payment of the sale consideration, the property in question, then lying as Nilam, was reclaimed and from the aforesaid extent, one cent was given for the purpose of construction of a road to Thrikkakara Gama Panchayath. In short, from out of the scheduled property an extent of six cents is still remaining in the possession of the revision petitioner. He has taken various other legal contentions including the jurisdiction of the first respondent to entertain the aforesaid application under Section 54 of the Wakf Act, which culminated in proceedings No. E4-387/09/A dated 24.12.2009. Obviously, the 1st respondent passed the said order dated 24.12.2009 treating the revision petitioner as an encroacher and ordered him to remove the encroachment and also to hand over the possession of the property within the time limit specified therein. In case of his failure to do so, the matter would be referred to the Jurisdictional Sub Divisional Magistrate, for removing the revision petitioner with Police assistance as provided under Section 55 of the Wakf Act, 1995, going by the said order. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner herein approached the Wakf Tribunal, by filing W.O.A.No. 5/2010. As per the judgment dated 03.01.2014, the Tribunal upheld the order of the Chief Executive Officer of the Wakf Board dated 24.12.2009 and dismissed the Original Application. It is in the said circumstances that the captioned revision petition has been filed.

(3.) We have heard Sri. T.H.Abdul Azeez, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, Sri. T.P.Sajid, the learned Standing Counsel for 1st respondent, Sri. Shinu J.Pillai, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and Sri. T.U.Ziyad, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent.