IMPORTANT POINT
The Waqf Board lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate ownership disputes over land not registered as Waqf property, necessitating resolution in civil court.

JUDGMENT :

Amit Rawal, J.

The present petition is directed against the judgment of the Waqf tribunal rendered in O.A. No.9 of 2006 dated 30.09.2010 whereby, the order of the Waqf Board dated 21.7.1998 holding an enquiry proceedings in E.P. No.1000 of 1996 has been set aside.

2. Succinctly, the facts in brief are as follows:

The petitioner, claiming to be the member of the Jama ath, submitted a complaint under Section 52 of the Kerala Waqf Act to the Waqf Board for prohibitory injunction and reclaiming the land from the possession of the respondents therein, who alleged to have acquired certain rights by way of certain documents. It was alleged that they are the members of the committee of the Jama ath and adjacent to that property, there is a burial ground on a land measuring13.89 Acres having Resurvey No.64/1A and 64/2 of the Paduvilayi Village under Patta Nos.52 and 53. Notice of the aforementioned application was given to the respondents who opposed the locus standi much less submitted that the registration is not in favour of the applicant, that is the petitioner, but of Koyilod Mahallu Juma-ath, therefore, no other person would have a right.

3. The Waqf Board framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the petitioner has any locus standi to file the petition.

(ii) Whether the petitioner is a beneficiary.

(iii) Whether the entire property having an extent of 13.89 Acres comprised in Re Survey No.64/IA and 64/2 is wakf property.

(iv) Whether the Registration of the property before the Wakf Board as per No.6087/RA is lesser than the original extent.

4. After analysis of the report of the inspection conducted by the member of the Board, it was found that registration No.6087/RA was in favour of the petitioner herein, the applicant before the Waqf Board and the land was being used as burial ground, but the respondents were found to be in possession of the land on the basis of purchase of the property and it was held that the status of the property was unauthorised, in that background ordered for taking the possession by authorizing the Chief Executive Officer to take necessary steps.

5. The matter was taken up by the respondents before the tribunal in O.A. No.9 of 2006 interalia on the ground that the alleged inspection/enquiry conducted by one of the officers of the Board was at their back and without giving a copy thereof. In fact, they became the owners of the property by way of assignment deed and purchase certificate issued by the competent land owner, but despite that, the Waqf Board passed the order of ejectment treating the property to be Waqf.

6. The petitioners countered the aforementioned plea before the tribunal and averred that the purchase certificate much less the assignment deed was the result of fraud and collusion. Since the parties were at variance, the learned tribunal framed the following issues:

1) Whether the impugned order is sustainable in law?

2) Relief and costs?

7. Both the parties brought on record the following documents before the tribunal: