Revision petition against a Wakf Tribunal order granting plaintiffs title to wakf property, filed with a 1574-day condonation of delay application. The court found the explanation inadequate and no merit in the challenge, dismissing the revision petition.
None; delay condonation rejected and revision petition dismissed.
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 MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 17TH ASHADHA, 1946
CRP(WAKF) NO. 37 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.04.2016 IN OS NO.1 OF 2013 OF WAKF
TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE
REVISION PETITIONER/2nd DEFENDANT:
THE MUTHAWALLY, KOTTAPPARAMBATH
PUTHIYAPURA THARAWAD WAKF, K.P.HOUSE, HALWA BAZAR,
CALICUT-1, PIN-673 001 REP.BY PRESENT MUTHAWALLY,
KADEEJABI, AGED 77 YEARS, W/O.MOHAMMED KOYA (LATE),
KADEEJA VILLA, MUNDAPARAMBA ROAD, PUTHIYANGADI,
KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT
BY ADVS.
THAREEQ ANVER K
VINOD RAVINDRANATH(K/001479/1999)
MEENA.A.(K/001814/1995)
K.C.KIRAN(K/621/2006)
M.DEVESH(K/1253/2012)
ASHWIN SATHYANATH(K/001035/2016)
M.R.MINI(K/000153/1996)
RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS & 1ST DEFENDANT:
1 K. MARIYAMBI AGED 58 YEARS, D/O.AHAMMED KOYA, 12/840-A, KADEEJA MANZIL, KASHTOORI, PARAMBA LANE, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673 0012K.IMBICHAMINABI
AGED 57 YEARS, D/O.AHAMMED KOYA, 12/840-A, 'CRESENT'
KASHTOORI, PARAMBA LANE, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673 001
3THE KERALA WAKF BOARD
REP.BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA WAKF BOARD
REGIONAL OFFICE, EROTH CENTRE BUILDING BANK ROAD,
KOZHIKODE-1, PIN-673 001
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN
SHRI.T.K.SAIDALIKUTTY
SRI.P.A.HARISH
SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ, SC, WAQF BOARD
CRP(WAKF) NO. 37 OF 2020
-2-
THIS CRP (WAKF ACT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
CRP(WAKF) NO. 37 OF 2020
-3-
ORDER
AMIT RAWAL, J.
CRP(WAKF) NO. 37 OF 2020
-4-
intentional and willful and does not require to be condoned.
CRP(WAKF) NO. 37 OF 2020
-5-
would lead to the irresistible conclusion that the petitioner had been lackadaisic in taking the remedy in accordance with law as the limitation to file revision petition against the order of the Tribunal is ninety(90) days. Order of the Tribunal is dated 12.04.2016. Copy of the order was received by the petitioner on 31.5.2016. The revision ought to have been filed on or before 31.7.2016. Mutawalli remained alive till 2018. No explanation has come as to why the remedy was not taken. On death of the mutawalli, the Revision Petition was filed under his name in 2019 with 1060 days delay. Since objection was raised that the revision is in the name of a dead person, the same was withdrawn and thereafter, again, after a gap of almost one year, preferred a revision petition on 11.11.2020 with a delay of 1574 days.
CRP(WAKF) NO. 37 OF 2020
explanation, in our considered view, do not suffice the requirement of the Limitation Act for warranting the interference for condonation of delay. Persons cannot be said to be ignorant of the provisions of law. If such interference is warranted, there will be no end to the litigation and things which have already been settled cannot be permitted to be unsettled. Even on merits also, we do not find any illegality in the order of the Tribunal. Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL
JUDGE
Sd/-
EASWARAN S.
JUDGE
vv
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay of 1574 days in filing the CRP against the Wakf Tribunal's order should be condoned.
Whether the Wakf Tribunal erred in granting ownership to the plaintiffs under Section 63 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
The Muthawally, Kottapparambath Puthiyapura Tharawad Wakf (rep. by Kadeejabi)
K. Mariyambi
K. Imbichaminabi
The Kerala Wakf Board
Amit Rawal
Easwaran S.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court