MARAKKAR T Vs. DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KERALA WAQF BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner who claims to have interest in the functioning of West Pazhur Jama-ath Palli. According to him, the Waqf is presently managed by the 2nd respondent committee. In other words, according to the petitioner himself, the 2nd respondent is the Muthavally of the said Waqf. He filed O.S.16/2017 before the Waqf Tribunal, Kozhikode seeking a declaration that the 3rd respondent alone is having the authority to manage the Waqf property. The 2nd respondent filed O.P.305/2016 before the Waqf Board against the petitioner and certain others to restrain them from trespassing into the Waqf properties. Pending such proceedings, the petitioner filed Ext.P3 complaint before the Chief Executive Officer of the Waqf Board. Essentially his complaint is that without obtaining prior permission of the Board the property belonging to the Waqf has been alienated for the purpose of construction of a road. Since the grievance pertains to an alienation of Waqf property without prior sanction, essentially it is a matter for the Waqf Board to adjudicate.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 4.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 4 submitted that the 2nd respondent filed an explanation before the 1st respondent. Thus it is obvious that on receipt of Ext.P3, explanation was sought for from the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent has already submitted its explanation. In such circumstances, it is evident that in exercise of the power vested with the Waqf Board, the Waqf Board had already taken a decision to consider Ext.P3 on merits. In such circumstances we do not think that a further direction is required. Needless to say that when such a complaint is received regarding alienation of Waqf properties, it is the bounden duty of the Waqf Board to consider it in accordance with law.