SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 82544

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CHERUVATTY USMAN HAJI – Appellant
Versus
KOTTAYAM MAHALLU MUSLIM JAMA-ATH COMMITTEE – Respondent
WP(C) 18080/2024



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL &

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.

TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2024 / 22ND SRAVANA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 18080 OF 2024 PETITIONER(S):

CHERUVATTY USMAN HAJI AGED 78 YEARS (WRONGLY SHOWN AS S/O KADER IN EARLIER PROCEEDINGS )

MUTHAVALLY , GURIKKANMARAKATH WAKF , PERAVUR AMSOM DESOM MELMURIGODI P.O THALASSERY TALUK KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670643 BY ADV M.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S):

1 KOTTAYAM MAHALLU MUSLIM JAMA-ATH COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT P.C KASIM HAJI , S/O MAMOOTTY HAJI , KOTTAYAM AMSOM DESOM , THALASSERY TALUK , KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670643

2 P.C. KASIM HAJI PRESIDENT , KOTTAYAM MAHALLU MUSLIM JAMA - ATH COMMITTEE, S/O MAMOOTTY HAJI, KOTTAYAM AMSOM DESOM THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670643

3 M.R. NAUSHAD AGED 45 YEARS S/O N.P MAMMU , GENERAL SECRETARY KOTTAYAM MAHALLU MUSLIM JAMA -ATH COMMITTEE MALLAATTI HOUSE, KOTTAYAM ANGADI, THALASSERI TALUK KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670643

4 P.C. NASER AGED 52 YEARS S/ O P.R. MAHAMOOD RESIDING AT " KADEEJA " KOTTAYAM MALABAR KUTHUPARAMBA KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670643

5 P.C.KAMALUDHEEN AGED 44 YEARS S/O MAMMOTTY HAJI THANGAL " LAILATHUL HOUSE"

KOTTAYAM MALABAR KUTHUPARAMBA KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670643

6 P.C.SHIHAB AGED 34 YEARS S/O MOIDEEN RESIDING AT " PONNAMBILATHA HOUSE "

KOTTAYAM MALABAR KUTHUPARAMBA KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670643

7 THE KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, VIP ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI, PIN - 682017 BY ADVS.

FIROZ K.M.

K.NOORUDHEEN(K/51/1995)

SRI K M FIROZ SRI JAMSHEED HAFIZ SC WAQF THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.08.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Amit Rawal, J.

1. The present writ petition is directed against the interim order dated 25.03.2024 of the Waqf Board Ext.P9 dismissing application bearing No.335/2023 in O.P.No.195/2022 submitted by the petitioner - respondent in the aforementioned O.P.

2. Petitioner claims to be Mutawalli of a very old Wakf carrying out its activities under the name and style Gurukkanmarakath Makham with registration No.519/RA. The aforementioned land originally belonged to a Hindu King which was given by the Raja for a burial amongst Muslim community and therefore, Makham is managed by petitioner who is the successor-in-interest of the original Mutawalli for the past more than sixty(60) years.

3. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 claiming to be the members of the Jama-ath Committee, instituted a suit before the Wakf Tribunal as O.S.No.44/22 with the following prayer and also claimed an interim relief of injunction restraining the petitioner and another defendants from interfering into the management, vide I.A.No.278/2022:

A. Declaring that the plaintiff Society is the Mutawalli of the plaint schedule Waqf;

B. Consequentially restraining the defendants 1 to 4 and their men from entering into or trespassing upon the plaint schedule Waqf and also from interfering with the peaceful possession and management of the plaint schedule Waqf by the plaintiff Society as its Mautawalli by a perpetual prohibitory injunction;

C. Directing defendants 1 to 4 to give the entire cost of the above suit to the plaintiff Society;

D. Granting such other further reliefs for which the plaintiff Society may pray fr during the pendency of the suit and this Honourable Tribunal deems fit to grant.

The said application bearing No.278/2022 was dismissed vide order dated 09.12.2022. The aforementioned order was assailed before this Court in C.R.P(Wakf)No.55/2022 which was dismissed on 08.02.2023 Ext.P3.

4. Having failed to obtain injunction, intended to take possession forcibly, impelled the petitioner to approach this Court for assistance of police vide writ petition No.19330/2023 for the reason that police, despite being requested, did not consider the prayer. This Court had protected the possession of the petitioner by issuing certain directions and the writ petition is still pending.

5. However, Sri.M.Krishn

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top