Kurian Joseph, J.

1. Give unto God what belongs to Him and leave man to enjoy what belongs to him. If this balance is tilted, peace on earth is disturbed. Once a Wakf is duly created, the property belongs to God and the enjoyment is to be restricted to the dedicated purposes. There being a restriction on enjoyment of property, progeny is tempted or prompted to probe as to whether there is a valid Wakf at all. Which is the forum to first look into the matter is the crucial question arising for consideration in this case.

2. The petitioners are respondents 2, 5 and 8 in A.S. No.10/2001 on the file of the Wakf Tribunal, Kozhikode. The matter was pursued before the Tribunal by respondents 1 and 2 aggrieved by the suo motu steps of the Board to register 17 cents of property in Re-survey No.230/2 in Kozhikode District, which is popularly known as Mampram Makkam. The suit was initially dismissed by the Tribunal holding that respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to maintain an appeal before the Tribunal against the decision taken by the Wakf Board to register Mampram Makkam as Wakf property. The matter was taken up before this court in C.R.P. No. 672/2002 and O.P. No. 17924/2002. This Court disposed of the civil revision petition and the writ petition by common order dated 29-8-2002 holding that the finding of the Tribunal that the revision petitioner is not competent to file an appeal before the Wakf Tribunal is not correct in view of Section 83 of the Wakf Act. Therefore, this court held that "----it is only just and proper to set aside the judgment of the Wakf Tribunal and remand the case to the lower court for fresh consideration". It was also observed that "admittedly, before taking a decision in respect of Mampram Makkam, no notice was issued either to the petitioner in C.R.P. No. 672 of 2002 or to the petitioner in O.P. No. 17924 of 2002. So the Wakf Board was not justified in suo motu registering Mampram Makkam as Wakf without giving notice to the interested parties and without complying the procedure provided in the Wakf Act". Therefore, in the writ petition this court issued a direction to the Wakf Tribunal " to consider A.S.No.10 of 2001 on merit after giving an opportunity to the parties in the C.R.P. and in the O.P. to substantiate their case".

3. The Tribunal, after an elaborate discussion of the facts and evidence, came to the conclusion that the Wakf Board has not properly exercised its jurisdiction in the matter of registration. It was noted that the affected parties had not been given an opportunity to place their contentions before the Board as to whether the disputed property is Wakf or not and hence the suo motu registration without such an opportunity was illegal and consequently remitted the matter to the board for fresh consideration.

4. The main contention of the petitioners is that in view of the mandate under Section 7 of the Wakf Act, 1995, the Wakf Tribunal alone is having jurisdiction to decide the question as to whether a property is Wakf property or not. It is also contended that Section 32 of the Act dealing with the powers and functions of the Board does not contemplate any such power on the Board to decide as to whether the property is Wakf or not. Under Section 83 of the Act the Tribunal is the Forum to determine any dispute, question or other matter regarding the Wakf, it is contended. Reliance is placed on Two Bench decisions of this Court in (1) Pookoya Haji v. Cheriyakoya(2003 (3) K.L.T.32) and (2) Madeena Masjid v. Kerala Jama Ath Islami Hind(2007 (3) K.L.T.800), wherein it has been held that "The words any dispute, question or other matters relating to Wakf or Wakf property under S.85 are wide enough to take in within its sweep not only matters which are specifically conferred on the Tribunal by the various provisions of (the Act but also any dispute, question or any other matter relating to any Wakf or Wakf property since those powers have also been conferred on the Tribunal by the Wakf Act i