Dismissed¶52

Ayatt Ammed Haji v. Kerala State Waqf Board

Kerala HC17 Mar 2025CRP(WAKF)/9/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRP(WAKF) 9/2025; Neutral: 2025:KER:22540; High Court of Kerala (Amit Rawal & K. V. Jayakumar JJ.), 17.03.2025. Keywords: Section 42 Wakf Act - notification of change in management/mutawalli; Kerala State Waqf Board; Wakf Tribunal Kozhikode WOA 80/2022; mutawalliship surrendered by 2017 application; complaint alleging fraud, misrepresentation, coercion; six-year delay; estoppel under Section 115 erstwhile Evidence Act urged by Board's counsel; inheritable mutawalliship left open for appropriate proceedings; revision dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The findings of the Wakf Tribunal in WOA No. 80 of 2022 do not suffer from any illegality or perversity. ¶51

Ayatt Ammed Haji Vs Kerala State Waqf Board — Kerala HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶52

Issue for consideration

Whether the findings of the Wakf Tribunal in WOA No. 80 of 2022, dismissing the petitioner's challenge to the Wakf Board's conferral of mutawalliship on the 2nd respondent, suffer from illegality or perversity. +2 more

¶29

Court's answer

The findings of the Wakf Tribunal in WOA No. 80 of 2022 do not suffer from any illegality or perversity.

¶51

Ratio / Principle

No ground for interference is made out and the C.R.P.(Wakf) stands dismissed.

¶52

Key takeaways

It could not be believed that for six years the petitioner did not come to know of the change, the person in whose favour the mutawalliship was surrendered having discharged the duties of Mutawalli for the last seven years.ratio¶51
Exposition of Section 42, Wakf Act: when applications for change of management of a registered waqf are moved, the Wakf Board holds an enquiry and, if it finds the application to be in order, passes an order making an entry in the record with regard to the change in the Mutawalliship.obiter¶47
The issue of inheritable Mutawalliship was not the main ground taken in the application; it can be pursued in appropriate proceedings, but not in the manner and mode sought before the Tribunal (point left open here).

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Kerala High Court, Ernakulam (Amit Rawal & K. V. Jayakumar JJ.), 17.03.2025 - CRP(WAKF) No. 9 of 2025: Revision by the erstwhile Mutawalli against the order of the Wakf Tribunal, Kozhikode in WOA No. 80 of 2022 (dated 23.11.2023 per body text; cover page recites 23.11.2024) dismissing his challenge to the Kerala State Waqf Board's change of mutawalliship in favour of the 2nd respondent pursuant to a 2017 application notified under Section 42 of the Wakf Act. Held: the Tribunal's findings are free of illegality and perversity; six-year silence was implausible as the 2nd respondent had discharged the duties of Mutawalli for seven years and the alleged 2017 complaint never saw the light of day; the claim of inheritable mutawalliship under the wakf deed was left to be pursued in appropriate proceedings, not in the manner urged. Revision dismissed.

¶1

2025:KER:22540

¶2

CRP(WAKF) NO. 9 OF 2025

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶7

¶8

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR

¶9

MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1946

¶10

CRP(WAKF) NO. 9 OF 2025

¶11

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 23.11.2024 IN WOA
NO.80 OF 2022 OF WAKF TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE

¶12

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPLICANT:

¶13

AYATT AMMED HAJI
AGED 84 YEARS
S/O. CHEKEN @ MOIDEEN, KOCHERI HOUSE,
MUTAWALLI, ORKATTERI JUMA-ATH PALLI,
ORKATTERI AMSOM AND DESOM PO, ORKATTERI,
VADKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673501

¶14

BY ADVS.
T.P.SAJID
K.P.MOHAMED SHAFI
ABDUL KAREEM CHELERI
SHIFA LATHEEF
MUHAMMED HAROON A.N.
SREESHMA B. CHANDRAN
HASHARURAHIMAN U.
MOHEMED FAVAS
MUHAMMED BILAL K.
VIJITH N.P.

¶15

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶16

1 KERALA STATE WAQF BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, , VIP ROAD, KALOOR, COCHIN, PIN - 682017

¶17

CRP(WAKF) NO. 9 OF 2025

¶18

¶19

2025:KER:22540

¶20

2ASHRAF
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O. ORATTU IBRAHIM, ORATTU HOUSE,
ORKATTERI AMSOM AND DESOM, PO ORKATTERI,
VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673501
3K.M. KUNHI MOOSA HAJI
AGED 74 YEARS
S/O. AMMAD HAJI, PRESIDENT, ORKATTERI MAHAL,
JAMA-ATH COMMITTEE, PO ORKKATTERI,
VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT –,
PIN - 673501

¶21

BY ADVS.
ANAND K
BENNY ANTONY PAREL(K/000053/1996)
GOWRI MENON(K/001001/2024)
NANDHANA T.B.(K/003013/2024)
ARCHANA N.(K/001406/2025)

¶22

SRI JAMSHEED HAFIZ SC WAQF

¶23

THIS CRP (WAKF ACT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶24

CRP(WAKF) NO. 9 OF 2025

¶25

¶26

2025:KER:22540

¶27

ORDER

¶28

Amit Rawal, J.

¶29

Present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner, the erstwhile Mutawalli, against the order dated 23.11.2023 of the Wakf Tribunal in WOA No. 80 of 2022, whereby the challenge laid to the action of the Wakf Board in conferring the mutawalliship of the wakf to 2^nd respondent without considering the representation of the petitioner, has been dismissed.

¶30

The relief sought therein was based on the fact that as per the Wakf deed, the Mutawalliship was inherited by the family members. In 2017, an application, alleged to have been signed by the petitioner, was submitted to the Wakf Board for changing the Mutawalliship in favour of the 2^nd respondent, which was enquired into and notified by the Wakf Board as per the provisions of Section 42 of the Wakf Act. After expiry of almost five(5) years, submitted a complaint to the Wakf Board for reconsideration of the request submitted

¶31

CRP(WAKF) NO. 9 OF 2025

¶32

¶33

2025:KER:22540

¶34

in 2017 which was based upon the application of fraud, misrepresentation or coercion. It is contended that the Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration all these factors, as there is a categoric pleading that even in 2017 also, complaint of similar nature was submitted but did not make any headway.

¶35

On the other hand, Sri.Jamsheed Hafiz, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Wakf Board submitted that the order of the Tribunal is perfectly legal and justified for the reason that no explanation has come forward for a period of six(6) years, much less the alleged complaint of 2017 has not seen the light of the day. Even though, the inheritable Mutawalliship, as per the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, is not permitted, the remedy lies elsewhere, but not in the manner and mode, as, the petitioner was estopped as per the provisions of Section 115 of the erstwhile Evidence Act for challenging the same without explaining the delay of six(6) years.

¶36

On the other hand, Sri.K.Anand, learned

¶37

CRP(WAKF) NO. 9 OF 2025

¶38

¶39

2025:KER:22540

¶40

counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 submitted that the petitioner had submitted the application on account of his own volition and there was no coercion or any force applied for submission of such application surrendering the Mutawalliship in favor of the respondent No.2 and urged this

¶41

Court for dismissal of this revision petition with exemplary cost.

¶42

We have heard the learned counsel for the

¶43

parties and appraised the paper book.

¶44

6. Section 42 of the Wakf Act reads as under:

¶45

Change in the management of auqaf to be notified.-(1) In the case of any change in the management of a registered waqf due to the death or retirement or removal of the mutawalli, the incoming mutawalli, shall forthwith, and any other person may notify the change to the Board. (2) In the case of any other change in any of the particulars mentioned in section 36, the mutawalli shall, within three months from the occurrence of the change, notify such change to the Board.

¶46

On perusal of the aforementioned provision, it is

¶47

evident that as and when such applications are moved, the Wakf Board holds an enquiry and if it finds the application to

¶48

CRP(WAKF) NO. 9 OF 2025

¶49

¶50

2025:KER:22540

¶51

be in order, passes an order by making an entry in the record with regard to the change in the Mutawalliship. It cannot be believed that for six(6) years the petitioner did not come to know, despite the fact that the person in whose favour muthawalliship was surrendered had been discharging the duties of the Mutawally for the last seven(7) years. Though the issue of inheritable Mutawalliship was not the main ground taken in the application, but that can b e course ope n in an appropriate proceedings but not in the manner and mode as sought to be urged before the Tribunal. Accordingly, we are of the view that the findings of the Tribunal do not suffer from any illegality and perversity.

¶52

No ground for interference is made out. C.R.P.(Wakf) stands dismissed.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

AMIT RAWAL, JUDGE

¶55

Sd/- K. V. JAYAKUMAR , JUDGE

¶56

nak

¶57

2025:KER:22540

¶58

CRP(WAKF) NO. 9 OF 2025

¶59

¶60

APPENDIX OF CRP(WAKF) 9/2025

¶61

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶62

Annexure 1TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED
12/06/2003 ISSUED BY THE KERALA WAKF
BOARD , KOZHIKODE TO THE PETITIONER
WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION

¶63

Annexure 2TRUE OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED
13/01/2020 ISSUED BY THE WAKF BOARD TO
THE PETITIONER WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION

¶64

Annexure 3TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
02/06/2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE WAKF BOARD WITH ENGLISH
TRANSLATION

¶65

Annexure 4THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE MINUTES OF
THE WAKF BOARD ERNAKULAM DATED
08/06/2022 ALONG WITH ORDER DATED
28/09/2022 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION

¶66

Annexure 5TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO. A9-
611/2022/KKD DATED 28/9/2022 PASSED BY
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA
STATE WAQF BOARD, ERNAKULAM ALONG WITH
ENGLISH TRANSLATION

¶67

ANNEXURE 4 The English Translation of the Minutes
( English of the WAKF Board Ernakulam dated
Translation )08/06/2022 along with order dated
28/09/2022

Ayatt Ammed Haji v. Kerala State Waqf Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ayatt Ammed Haji v. Kerala State Waqf Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Zakeer Hussain M.K Vs the Administrator

Union of India Vs K.Retheesh

Bindu C. Vs State of Kerala

Nithin.O Vs the Union of India

Vadakkeyil Khader Haji Vs Kerala State Waqf Board

Abdul Latheef Vs J.D.T Islam Orphanage Committee