ORDER

Amit Rawa l , J.

Present revision petition is preferred against the judgment dated 16.07.2020 in WOS No.138 of 2019 on the file of the Wakf Tribunal Kozhikode. The Ballussery Mahal Muslim Jama-ath Committee and others instituted original suit WOS No.138 of 2019 against the tenant C. Basheer, for claiming arrears of rent for different periods and also in pursuance of the previous lease deed from the date of auction till the date of surrender, at a different rate. In those proceedings, P. Abdul Rahim moved an application to implead himself as a party to the suit which was allowed on the premise that the property bearing number VII/1172 belonged to his predecessor, therefore had a right to appropriate the rent in respect of the premises leased out to C.

Basheer, as the constructed portion falls on his land.

2. We have been informed that a similar controversy with regard to the ownership of the aforementioned property arose in WOS No.18 of 2019, which was decided against the said P. Abdul Rahim, by the Waqf Tribunal vide judgement dated 21.12.2023. Against the aforementioned judgment, C.R.P(WAKF)No.13 of 2024 was preferred. This Court vide judgment dated 06.08.2024 remanded the matter to the Tribunal by observing as under:

”12. We have heard counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book.

13. Concededly, Sri.Mammu Haji, the father of the plaintiffs/petitioners, during his lifetime, had dedicated 9.5 cents of land out of the ownership of 850 cents of land to the Waqf and on his demise, by respecting his sentiments, siblings also executed a written gift deed of 18.07.1977. By leaving aside the property measuring 9.5 cents, the plaintiffs executed a partition deed namely, Ext.B2 assigning the ownership of different parcels of land owned by Sri.Mammu Haji. Though the area adjoining to 9.5 cents was found to be in excess possession of the Committee, no action was taken out of respect for the deceased. However, when the Committee failed to pay rent, the cause of action accrued to seek relief from a competent court of law, as noticed above.

14. The averment that the Committee had been in possession of the property measuring 12 cents as per the dedication of Sri.Mammu Haji, has though not been proved on record, but in order to determine whether the portion 9.5 cents, which was earlier dedicated and thereafter reduced to writing, would be the Bench Mark for determining the status of the property as Waqf, the proper remedy was to inspect the revenue records and demarcate the property by a revenue ofÏcer instead of Advocate Commissioner, who would not have the nuances of revenue law. Even the assistance of the Tahsildar or Village OfÏcer was necessary, the cadastral map was also required for the purpose of noticing the survey numbers falling in the area referred to in the Waqf deed as well as in the ownership of Sri.Mammu Haji and subsequently in the names of the plaintiffs. All these factors have not been examined or taken into consideration by the Tribunal. Therefore, in our considered view, it is a fit case where the matter is required to be re- decided afresh after giving opportunities to the parties to the lis in terms of the direction given by this Court and also to adduce any additional evidence which the parties deem it appropriate in support of their respective stands.

Accordingly, the judgment of the Tribunal is set aside and this revision petition is allowed. The parties through the counsel are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 03.09.2024 and thereafter, the Tribunal shall proceed in accordance with the observation and also grant liberty as mentioned above and shall take every endeavour to decide the controversy as expeditiously as possible.”

3. In this view of the matter, we thus keep open the right of P. Abdul Rahim to claim the arrears of the rent, subject to the outcome of WOS No.18 of 2019, to be decided afresh on the basis of the remand order. The findings rendered by the Tribunal in the judgment and decree dated