Dismissed

K Abdul Kareem v. Dr N a Manzoor

Kerala HC9 Jul 2024CRP(WAKF)/70/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought framing of a Scheme under Section 69 of the Wakf Act for the Salafi Masjid, alleging mismanagement and misappropriation by the Trust acting as defacto Mutawalli. The Board and Tribunal dismissed the claim. The High Court found no material proving misappropriation, held a Trust may act as Mutawalli, and dismissed the revision.

What the court decided

AI extract

K Abdul Kareem Vs Dr N a Manzoor — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 18TH ASHADHA, 1946

¶7

CRP(WAKF) NO. 70 OF 2016

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP NO.74 OF 2008 OF WAKF BOARD,
ERNAKULAM ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 25.11.2015 IN OA
NO.8 OF 2013 OF WAKF TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM

¶9

REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:

¶10

1K ABDUL KAREEM
AGED 67 YEARS
S/O.KUNJAMMALIKKUNJU, SASTHAMPOYKAYIL HOUSE, KADATHUR,
K.S.PURAM P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY - 690 544.

¶11

2 MUHAMMED BASHEER

¶12

AGED 43 YEARS
S/O.ABUBACKER KUNJU, KATTOOR HOUSE, KOZHIKODEMAKE,
KARUNAGAPPALLY - 690 573.

¶13

3 BADARUDHEEN

¶14

AGED 61 YEARS
S/O.KUNJU MUHAMMED, S.B.NIVAS, MARU,

¶15

THEKKU, ALUMKADAVU P.O.,
KARUNAGAPPALLY - 690 573.

¶16

4MUHAMMED ASHRAD
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O.ABUBACKER, THOTTATHIL HOUSE, KOZHIKODE MAKE,
KARUNAGAPPALLY - 690 573.

¶17

5 NAZAR

¶18

AGED 44 YEARS
S/O.MUHAMMED KUTTY, PANAYIKULANGARATHARA,
MARU, THEKKU, ALUMKADAVU P.O.,
KARUNAGAPPALLY - 690 573.

¶19

6S.M.ABDUL MAJEED
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O.SAIDU MUHAMMED, FATHIMA MANZIL,
KADATHUR, K.S.PURAM P.O.,
KARUNAGAPPALLY - 690 544.

¶20

7 SHARAFUDHEEN

¶21

CRP(WAKF) NO. 70 OF 2016

¶22

¶23

AGED 44 YEARS
S/O.MUHAMMED KUNJU, KOTTADIYIL HOUSE,
KADATHUR,K.S.PURAM P.O.,
KARUNAGAPPALLY - 690 544.

¶24

BY ADV SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ

¶25

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶26

1DR. N A MANZOOR
AGED 67 YEARS
S/O.ABDUL HAMEED, ANAZ MANZIL,
PUNNAKKULAM,K.S.PURAM P.O.,
KARUNAGAPPALLY, PIN - 690 544.

¶27

2 THE KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, WAKF BOARD OFFICE, VIP ROAD, KALOOR,KOCHI – 17.

¶28

ADDL.R3E.ABDUL SAMAD,
S/O.IBRAHIM KUTTY,
KOTTIL HOUSE, KADATHUR, K.S.PURAM P.O.,
KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM, THE CHAIRMAN AND SECRETARY
OF SALAFI TRUST AND MASJID, PUTHENTHERUVU,
KARUNAGAPPILLY, KOLLAM, PIN – 690 544

¶29

(IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 09.7.2024 IN
I.A.NO.1/2020)

¶30

BY ADVS.
SRI.T.R.RAJAN
SHRI.T.K.SAIDALIKUTTY, SC, WAQF BOARD
SRI.T.P.SAJID, SC, KERALA STATE WAQF BOARD
Jamsheed Hafiz

¶31

SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ, SC, WAKF BOARD

¶32

THIS CRP (WAKF ACT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

¶33

09.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶34

¶35

CRP(WAKF) NO. 70 OF 2016

¶36

ORDER

¶37

Amit Rawal, J.

¶38

This CRP is directed against the judgment of Wakf Tribunal dated 25.11.2015 in O.A.No.08/2013 affirming the finding of the Kerala State Wakf Board dated 19.08.2013 in O.P.No.74/2008.

¶39

Petitioners alleged themselves to be the interested persons, preferred a claim before the Board for framing a Scheme as prescribed under Section 69 and following the procedure under Sections 32 and 70 of the Wakf Act on the premise that the Salafi Masjid is situated in 34 cents of land registered with the Board, shop rooms constructed are therefore Wakf property and there are cases of mismanagement much less the Trust Secretary who is the owner of Wakf is acting as defacto Mutawalli. In pursuance of the aforementioned allegations, the respondents-trustees appeared and contested the case and stated that as per the terms and conditions of the Trust Deed, there is no need of framing a Scheme, for, it is only

¶40

CRP(WAKF) NO. 70 OF 2016

¶41

¶42

the Mosque along with four shops which is registered as Wakf and other properties are not Wakf. All proceeds of donation given in the Mosque are being appropriated properly. The allegation of misappropriation could have been justified, had the other properties also been under the Wakf. There is no bar for the trust to act as a Muthawalli.

¶43

Since the parties were at variance, Board gave them a chance to lead an evidence. In support of the case, petitioners examined two witnesses PW1 and PW2 and placed on record six(6) documents Exts.A1 to A6. Ext.A1 is the copy of order of the WAKF Board dated 15.11.2007 in O.P.No.43/2003, Ext.A2 is the application for registration of Wakf by name ‘Salafi Trust’ by the respondent, Ext.A3 and Ext.A4 are the copies of income and expenditure statement of Salafi Trust submitted by the respondent, Ext.A5 is the copy of the report of the Commissioner in Original Suit No.15/2011 and Ext.A6 is the copy of the notice issued by the Chairman. Board conducted an enquiry and found that the Mosque was registered as a Wakf

¶44

CRP(WAKF) NO. 70 OF 2016

¶45

¶46

and ownership is of the trust. PW2 who was examined on the side of the petitioner, deposed that the funds were provided by a Muslim sect for construction of Mosque and shop building. The Board found that the terms and conditions of the trust reflects that the Mosque is being run by Muthawalli and has all the trappings of the Scheme contemplated to be framed under Section 69, dismissed the claim. Appeal preferred against the same is also be dismissed.

¶47

Sri.T.H.Abdul Azeez, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that though Trust is only acting as Muthawalli and in the absence of any separate Scheme for Mosque much less the case of mismanagement, it was a fit case were both the authorities failed to address the issue in not ordering framing of Scheme. No harm and prejudice would be caused in case it is so ordered. The the shop rooms are attracting a rent of Rs.400/- (Rupees four hindered only) and there was a contribution of almost Rs.6,500/- (Rupees six thousand five hundred only). The statement placed on record

¶48

¶49

CRP(WAKF) NO. 70 OF 2016

¶50

shows the mismanagement and therefore, it is a fit case for framing a separate Scheme.

¶51

On the other hand, Sri.T.R.Rajan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 supported that all the properties are under the name and ownership of the Trust except the Mosque. Whatever the donations and offerings made are being properly appropriated, therefore, there is no need of framing of the Scheme with regard to other properties as they are not part and parcel of the Wakf. The finding of fact cannot be interfered with unless there is glaring illegality and perversity.

¶52

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

¶53

From the tenor and mode of the findings arrived at by the courts below, we are of the prima facie view that petitioner has miserably failed to place on record any material to make out a case of misappropriation of the funds of the Mosque which are being received in offerings from the Public belonging to a particular sect, as other properties, concededly,

¶54

CRP(WAKF) NO. 70 OF 2016

¶55

¶56

as per the arguments addressed before us and also material and

¶57

documents on record, is not a Wakf, but is in the ownership of Trust. It is settled law that the Trust as per the definition of Muthawalli and the law laid down, can work as a Muthawalli. No single instance of misappropriation has been placed on record for deviating from the terms and conditions of the Trust for framing the separate Scheme.

¶58

As an upshot our findings, we do not find any aberration or repugnancy in the findings of Tribunal. CRP(WAKF) stands dismissed.

Sd/-

AMIT RAWAL

JUDGE

Sd/-

EASWARAN S. JUDGE

¶64

nak

K Abdul Kareem v. Dr N a Manzoor

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

K Abdul Kareem v. Dr N a Manzoor

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Muthawally, Kottapparambath Vs K. Mariyambi

Balakrishnan Vs Pallikkalakath Kooloth Mariyummakutty

Advocate M.Krishnan Vs Chief Executive Officer, Kerala State Waqf Board

State of Kerala Vs *Sankaran Namboothiri

Aabis International Vs Union of India

Al Qahir International Vs Union of India