Revision petition assailing the Waqf Tribunal's order maintaining jurisdiction over a suit for permanent injunction. Court held Tribunal's reliance on outdated precedent invalid per Rashid Wali Beg and remanded.
Impugned judgment and order of Waqf Tribunal set aside; matter remanded to Tribunal to decide according to law.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 16TH KARTHIKA, 1945
CRP(WAKF) NO. 4 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER IN W.O.S.NO.34/2020 DATED 20.10.2021 AND ORDER
DATED 02.11.2021 OF WAKF TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE
REVISION PETITIONER/4TH PLAINTIFF:
MOHAMMED SHAHID B.
AGED 47 YEARS
(WRONGLY SHOWN AS MOHAMMED SHAHIB B. IN THE ORDER),
S/O. MAMMOO HAJI @ P.C.MUHAMMED HAJI, TREASURER,
JAMEIYATH EHYAUDHEEN, C.C.XIII/645, (NEW NO.IX/400),
MASJID ANSAR ROAD, MATTANCHERRY P.O.,
KOCHANGADI AMSOM, THOPPUMPADI DESOM,
KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682005.
BY ADVS.
T.SETHUMADHAVAN (SR.)
DEEPA NARAYANAN
PREETHI. P.V.
M.V.BALAGOPAL
RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS 1 TO 5 & PLAINTIFFS 1 TO 3:
1JAMEIYATH EHYAUDHEEN
(REG.NO.11/2017), REP. BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE
A.S.LATHEEF SAIT, AGED 71 YEARS,
S/O. ABDUL SATHAR SAIT, 12/24, MARIAM MANZIL,
COCHIN COLLEGE ROAD, PANAYAPALLY, COCHIN-682002.
2A.S.LATHEEF SAIT,
AGED 71 YEARS
S/O. ABDUL SATHAR SAIT, 12/24, MARIAM MANZIL,
COCHIN COLLEGE ROAD, PANAYAPALLY, COCHIN-682002.
3A.S.AFZAL SAIT,
AGED 66 YEARS
S/O. ABDUL SATHAR SAIT, 12/1496, PANAYAPALLY,
RAMESHWARAM WEST MURI, THOPPUMPADY VILLAGE,
KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682005.
CRP(WAKF) NO. 4 OF 2022
-2-
4A.S.ASIF SAIT,
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O. ABDUL SATHAR SAIT, 13/206, KOCHANGADI,
THOPPUMPADY VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, PIN-682002.
5 THE KERALA STATE WAQF BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, VIP ROAD, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682017.6JAMEIYATH EHYAUDHEEN,
REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT & MUTHUVALLY Y.M. NOUPHAL
HAJI, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. YOONUSKUNHU,
C.C.XIII/645, (NEW NO.IX/400), MASJID ANSAR
ROAD, MATTANCHERRY P.O., KOCHANGADI AMSOM,
THOPPUMPADI DESOM, KOCHI TALUK,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682005.
7Y.M.NOUPHAL HAJI,
AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. YOONUSKUNHU, PRESIDENT &
MUTHAVALLY, C.C.XIII/645, (NEW NO.IX/400),
MASJID ANSAR ROAD, MATTANCHERRY P.O.,
KOCHANGADI AMSOM, THOPPUMPADI DESOM,
KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682005.
8HARIS M.S.,
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O. M.A.SHAREEF, SECRETARY,
JAMEIYATH EHYAUDHEEN, C.C.XIII/645,
(NEW NO.IX/400), MASJID ANSAR ROAD,
MATTANCHERRY P.O., KOCHANGADI AMSOM,
THOPPUMPADI DESOM, KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT-682005.
BY ADV
SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ, SC, WAQF
THIS CRP (WAKF ACT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
CRP(WAKF) NO. 4 OF 2022
-3-
JUDGMENT
AMIT RAWAL, J.
CRP(WAKF) NO. 4 OF 2022
-4-
CRP(WAKF) NO. 4 OF 2022
-5-
5. Paragraph No.52 of the judgment (supra) reads
as under:
“52. The approach of the High Court, in our considered view, is not in tune with the law. The question as to whether the suit for perpetual injunction is maintainable before the Waqf Tribunal or not, is already answered in Akkode Jumayath Palli Paripalana Committee. This Court, pointed out in the said decision that Ramesh Gobindram was distinguished in Anis Fatma Begum, and that therefore the Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain a suit for perpetual injunction. But unfortunately, this decision rendered by this Court on 23.07.2013 does not appear to have been brought to the notice of the High Court.”
6. Section 83(2) of the Wakf Act provides that any
dispute either on behalf of the muthavalli or any person aggrieved of can invoke the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Order of the Tribunal was based upon the law which is no longer good law in view of the judgment cited supra. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 20.10.2021 and 02.11.2021 are set aside. CRP is allowed. W.O.S. 34
CRP(WAKF) NO. 4 OF 2022
-6-
of 2020 is restored to original number. Tribunal will decide the same in accordance with law. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 29.11.2023.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL JUDGE
Sd/-
C.S. SUDHA
JUDGE
vv
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the order of the Waqf Tribunal is based on law overruled by the Supreme Court in Rashid Wali Beg.
Whether the maintainability of a suit for permanent injunction regarding Waqf properties falls under the jurisdiction of the Civil Court or the Waqf Tribunal.
Whether the impugned orders of the Waqf Tribunal warrant setting aside in view of the Apex Court judgment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rashid Wali Beg Vs. Farid Pindari and Ors.Explained¶32
Rashid Wali Beg Vs. Farid Pindari and Ors. (2022) 4 SCC 414 · Who else cites this
Akkode Jumayath Palli Paripalana CommitteeExplained¶36
Akkode Jumayath Palli Paripalana Committee
Mohammed Shahid B.
Jameiyath Ehyaudheen
A.S. Latheef Sait
A.S. Afzal Sait
Jameiyath Ehyaudheen
Kerala State Wakf Board
Amit Rawal
C.S. Sudha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court