The court affirmed the authority of the Wakf Board to enact management schemes while maintaining that previously established findings are final unless legally challenged.

ORDER

Gopinathan, J.

This is a revision preferred under Section 83 (9) of the Wakf Act , 1995 ('the Act' for short) assailing the judgment dated 24.03.2010 in A.S.No.1/2007 on the file of the Wakf Tribunal, Kozhikode whereby the order in E.P.No.E2(P)3/87 of the Wakf Board was set aside by the Tribunal.

2. The case has got a chequered history of more than 47 years. The first revision petitioner along with another filed O.P. No.5/1965 before the Wakf Board seeking an order to frame a scheme in respect of the Kottu Mahallu Muslim Jama-ath. The Wakf Tribunal allowed the petition by order dated 27.05.1967. Assailing the same, a suit as O.S.No.428/1967 was filed before the Munsiff's Court, Tirur. The suit was decreed on finding that the Board ordered to frame the scheme without hearing the concerned parties and the order of the Wakf Board was set aside. However, the Board was given liberty to frame the scheme after CRP 276/2010 2 hearing the concerned parties. Though an appeal was preferred as A.S.No.56/1972 before the Sub Court, Tirur, the petitioners were not successful. Thereupon, first petitioner and another filed O.P.No.3/1987 before the Wakf Board styling as one under Sections 15, 33, 40, 43A, 44 and 45 of the Wakf Act , 1954 seeking an order for framing the scheme. That petition was allowed on 08.06.1993. Against that order a writ petition as O.P. No.9717/1993 was filed before this Court. This Court allowed the writ petition and the case was remanded back to the Board for fresh disposal on merit after hearing both sides. Accordingly, the Board again heard the parties and allowed the petition by order dated 13.07.1999. Assailing the said order the first respondent therein preferred O.P.No.23139/1999 before this Court. By judgment dated 25.11.2005, this Court disposed of the writ petition directing to frame the scheme, but with liberty to the respondents to approach the Wakf Tribunal within a period of two months to redress their grievance, if any. But the respondents did not care to move the Tribunal. Thus, the order dated

13.07.1999 had become final.

CRP 276/2010 3

4. In the order dated 13.07.1999, the Wakf Board had arrived at a specific finding that first respondent, who was acting as the Muthavalli, had failed to maintain the account relating to the income and expenditure of the Mosque. There was failure to remit the due contribution to the Wakf Board. During the pendency of the proceedings, the Mosque was re-constructed spending about fourteen lakhs rupees. But no account was maintained regarding the income and expenditure. Neither the income and expenditure nor the statement of accounts was submitted before the General Body. There is no document to show that the Wakf is to be managed by a hereditary Muthavalli. Certain items of properties were found alienated. Therefore, the Board arrived at a conclusion that affairs of the Mosque was not properly managed by the first respondent and it would be appropriate to have participation of the members of the Mahal in the day-to-day functioning of the Wakf, except item nos.11 to 24 in Ext.D5. For that purpose, there should be a committee elected from among the members of the Mahal for the management of the Wakf. Taking into account the fact that first respondent was CRP 276/2010 4 acting as the Muthavalli, it was found that the first respondent is entitled to continue as the President of the committee during his life time. First respondent was also found entitled to continue as Muthavalli in respect of the properties, described as item nos.11 to 24 in Ext.D5. With these findings, it was ordered that a scheme is to be framed for the administration of the Wakf and parties were asked to submit detailed scheme regarding election, number of members in the council and administrative affairs.

5. In pursuance to the order dated 13.07.1999, as confirmed by this Court in the writ petition, suggestions were called for from the interested parties for framing the scheme. Accordingly, suggestions w