Construction of a Waqf property without registration can occur if established as Waqf by user prior to the amendment of the Waqf Act; the appellants failed to prove a prima facie case.

JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna S., J.

Petitioners in W.O.A.No.194 of 2025 on the file of the Waqf Tribunal, Kozhikode (‘the Tribunal’ for short), filed this M.F.A.(WAQF) invoking the provisions under Section 83 (9) of the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act , 1995, as amended by the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 (‘the Waqf Act’ for short), challenging the order dated 14.01.2026 passed by the Tribunal in I.A.No.1 of 2025 filed in that W.O.A.

2. As per the pleadings in this M.F.A.(WAQF), the appellants are persons interested in Waqf and Waqf properties managed by Puttanikkadu Mahallu Juma Masjid Committee. They are the general body members and Mahallu members of the said Juma Masjid Committee, which is arrayed as the 2^nd respondent in this M.F.A(WAQF). The appellants filed W.O.A.No.194 of 2025 before the Tribunal, challenging the order of the 1^st respondent Waqf Board, whereby permission was granted to the 2^nd respondent Committee to construct a Madrassa building in a property, which, according to the appellants, is not registered as a Waqf under the provisions of the Waqf Act. According to the appellants, the said order was passed by the Waqf Board by the proceedings dated 22.10.2025, without affording the appellants an effective opportunity of hearing and thereby violating the principles of natural justice. In W.O.A., the appellants filed I.A.No.1 of 2025 under Order XLI Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘the CPC’ for short), to stay the aforesaid order dated 22.10.2025 passed by the Waqf Board granting permission to construct a new Madrassa in the property situated in Re.Sy.No.37/13 of Kottoppadam-III Village.

3. From the statements of facts of this M.F.A(WAQF) and from the impugned order, we could gather that the contentions of the appellants in the interlocutory application are that the Executive Committee of Puttanikkadu Mahallu Juma Masjid Committee in its meeting held on 18.12.2024 decided to renovate and construct the existing Madrassa situated in Re.Sy.No.37/1 of Kottoppadam Village with an estimated cost of Rs.36,75,000/-. However, without placing this proposal before the general body of the 2^nd respondent Committee, the Executive Committee approached the 1^st respondent Waqf Board for approval, altering the project for the construction of a new Madrassa in a different property bearing Re.Sy.No.37/13. The said property comprised in Re.Sy.No.37/13 is not registered as a Waqf property. Thereafter, the Waqf Board issued notice to the respondent Committee as well as the appellants on 23.08.2025 to hear the matter. The 4^th appellant, on receipt of notice, appeared before the Waqf Board on 16.09.2025 and sought time to file a statement, and accordingly, the matter was posted to 14.10.2025. In the meanwhile, the appellants came to know that an officer had already been appointed by the Waqf Board in the said matter and that he had submitted a report. However, the copy of the aforesaid report was not furnished to the appellants and therefore, on 14.10.2025, the appellants sought further time to file their statement as the copy of the investigation report had not been served to them. But without heeding the said request and without hearing the appellants, the Chief Executive Officer of the Board issued the impugned proceedings on 22.10.2025.

4. Respondents 2 and 3 entered appearance before the Tribunal and filed a counter opposing the interlocutory application. According to the respondents, the appellants filed W.O.A. and the interlocutory application without any bona fides or legal grounds, only to stop the Madrassa construction based on a factional interest, which prevents the imparting of a