Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 55275
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
AMIT RAWAL, K. V. Jayakumar, JJ
M. KHAJA MOHAMMED – Appellant
Versus
THE KERALA STATE WAQF BOARD – Respondent
CRP(WAKF) 34/2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MOHAMMED SADIQUE.T.A, T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ, K.P.MAJEED, SHANKAR V., K.M.MOHAMMED YUSUFF
For the Respondents: M.M.MUHAMMAD ASHARAF, P.A.ABDUL JABBAR, MUHAMMED SHAFFI, EHLAS HALEEMA C.K., P.A.ABDUL MAJEED, JAMSHEED HAFIZ-SC, WAQF BOARD
Petitioners lacked standing to frame a scheme under the Wakf Act due to insufficient proof of membership and interest.
Headnote:(A) Wakf Act, 1995 - Section 69 - Revision petition against the rejection of claim for framing a scheme for the administration of a Wakf - Petitioners failed to prove their membership and interest in the Wakf - Court upheld the Tribunal's findings dismissing the application for framing the scheme. (Paras 1-17)
(B) Proxy litigation - Court emphasized the importance of genuine interest and compliance with statutory requirements for invoking jurisdiction under the Wakf Act, dismissing the petition as an abuse of process. (Paras 12-17)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought to frame a scheme for a Wakf, claiming to be members and beneficiaries, but faced opposition from established committees and disputes regarding registration.
Findings of Court:
The petitioners did not establish their membership or locus standi, leading to the dismissal of their claim.
Issues: The primary issues included the petitioners’ standing to file for a scheme and the legitimacy of their claims against existing committees.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioners lacked the necessary qualifications and interest in the Wakf, affirming the Tribunal’s dismissal of their application.
Result: Revision petition dismissed.
ORDER
Amit Rawal, J.
1. Present revision petition is directed against the concurrent findings rendered in O.P.No.70 of 2009 whereby the claim of the petitioners for framing a scheme for the Jama-ath known as Chirattappally, Namaskara Palli, Puthunagaram Wakf has been rejected and the same has been upheld by the Tribunal in appeal.
2. Succinctly, the facts in brief are as follows:
Appellants/ petitioners, seven (7) in number, instituted a petition under Section 69 of the Wakf Act for framing a scheme, which requires atleast five(5) persons to be the signatory on the ground that they are the members and beneficiaries of the Chirattappally Namaskara Palli, which came into existence long time back and situated in 14 cents of land in Re-survey No.339/12 of Puthunagaram village. There are certain shop rooms on both sides of the Mosque and a nerchakutty was built in concrete with two rooms on south-east corner. The waqf was having another 11 cents property, out of which 5 cents has been sold by few of the persons. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 had collected huge amounts from the tenants and misappropriated the same. The annual maintenance of the Mosque was met by the members and beneficiaries by donations. There is a convention that the maintenance of the tenanted premises is being met by the tenants themselves, but they are not vigilant in carrying out the same. There was an attempt to sell eleven (11) cents of Wakf property and against the said alienation, a civil suit bearing No.344 of 1983 was filed before the Munsiff Court, Chittoor and the appeal from the above suit bearing number A.S.No.227/85 is still pending before the District Court. Due to the illegal alienation, the waqf is possessing only six (6) cents out of 11 cents of waqf property. It was also asserted that owing to the dispute between respondent nos.2 and 3 ie., Shafi Jama-ath Committee and Chirattappalli Committee, it was felt appropriate to frame the scheme.
3. Respondents contested the aforementioned claim on the premise that the petitioners were neither the members of the Chirattapppalli Namaskara palli ie., disputed Wakf, nor had authority to apply for the scheme, much less there was no compliance of the provisions of Section 69 . The claim of the Shafi Muslims in the civil Suit bearing No.360/94 as well as in the appeal filed against the said suit, were dismissed by the respective courts.
4. Learned Waqf Board, noticing the aforementioned facts in the penultimate paragraph of the order dated 18.12.2017, dismissed the claim in the following manner.
"Evidences of both parties were taken and they have marked their respective documents. Parties were heard in detail by the Board and after hearing a detailed discussion was conducted by the Board and Board finds that as the said waqf is not registered and there is severe disputes regarding registration it is just a necessary to conduct an overall enquiry regarding the administration, income, properties and other aspects regarding the waqf. Also on perusal of documents marked as exhibit B 16 and B 17 it is seen that at present there is a bye law for the administration of the waqf and a committee elected on the basis of the bye law is administering the waqf. The petitioners failed to prove that there is no bye law for the administration and there no contention or proof regarding what is lacking in the present bye law. Hence, the prayer for framing the scheme is dismissed. On the basis of the above finding the Divisional officer, Thrissur is directed to conduct an overall enquiry regarding the administration, properties, income and all other aspects connected to the waqf and submit a report before the Board within 2 months.”
Appeal preferred has also been dismissed by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 04.07.2023
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that umpteen number of documents were placed on record, in support of the averments made in the pleadings but neither the Board nor the Tribunal has adve
