POOKOYA HAJI Vs. CHERIYAKOYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE legal question to be decided in this case is whether the 5th respondent has jurisdiction to entertain Ext. P2 petition filed by respondents 1 to 3 and to decide the same under S. 83 (2) of the Wakf Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). THE prayer in Ext. P2 is to pass a decree declaring that the office of Muttawalli of the Mosque scheduled in the petition is vested with the Pattakkal family and that the first plaintiff in ext. P2 was duly chosen to be the Mutawalli of the Mosque and for consequential reliefs.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, S. 83 (2) of the Act clearly contemplates that any person aggrieved by the order passed under the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder may file an application challenging the same. Therefore, in the absence of any order passed either by the Wakf Board or by the Chief Executive Officer under the provisions of the act determining the Mutawalliship of the Mosque, the 5th respondent cannot decide any dispute with regard to the Mutawalliship of a Mosque as an Original petition. Thus it was contended that the nature of the jurisdiction of the 5th respondent Tribunal is as an appellate body and not as a Tribunal having any original jurisdiction.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the first respondent brought to my notice a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court reported in Subban shah v. M. P. Wakf Board, AIR 1997 M. P. 8. In the above ruling a similar provision as that of S. 83 contained in S. 55 of the Wakf (M. P. Amendment) Act was considered. In the above ruling the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that any question with regard to any dispute relating to a Wakf or Wakf property can be decided by the Tribunal.