Chief Executive Officer vs Secretary

Amit Rawal, J.

The present revision petition is directed against the order dated 14/11/2019 of the Waqf Tribunal in W.O.A.No.26/2019 whereby the claim of the petitioner/Chief Executive Officer, Kerala State Waqf Board for seeking eviction of the respondents has been declined.

Petitioner initiated proceedings under Section 54 of the Waqf Act against the respondents on the premise that the Secretary of the Pappinisseri Grama Panchayath had unauthorizedly, illegaly and without any valid documents seen occupying a building owned by the Mankadavu Juma-ath Palli Committee/2nd respondent to the extent of 25 cents situated in survey no.55/2A of Kannur Taluk. An enquiry was conducted and it was found that the respondent no.1 was in unauthorized possession and in this view of the matter, application under sub section (3) of Section 54 of the Act was filed before the Waqf Tribunal for seeking the eviction of the respondent no.1 on the allegation of encroachment. The matter was contested by the respondents and certain documents like Exts.B1 page no.39 and Ext.B2, page no. 64 of the Assessment Register of 20/10/1993 and Ext.B3 photo copy of Assessment Register report of Pappinisseri Grama Panchayath were placed on record, which reflected that property was of the Grama Panchayath and a separate sheet attached showing the particulars of the property in the gazette notification dated 12/01/1965 was held by the Government. Considering all these facts and as well as the house tax register, court dismissed the application by relegating the petitioner to resolve the dispute with regard to the title. It is in these circumstances the present revision petition has been filed.

Mr.Jamsheed Hafiz, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that court below has failed to consider that the property was dedicated to the Waqf and any person who is in its occupation is required to vacate the premises as per the provisions of sub section (3) of Section 54 particularly when an enquiry as contemplated in the provisions of sub section (2) of Section 54 Waqf Act had been held. The provisions of sub clause 6(2) regarding the registration of the property as Waqf had also not been considered, thus, there is an abdication/illegality and perversity. It was further contended that the assessment registers are not the matter of proof for conferring title as they are only meant for fiscal purposes.

On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the Grama Panchayath submitted that even the gazatte notification of 1965 did not clarify the ownership of the Waqf property as there was a separate sheet which reflected the ownership of the property. In the absence of any title on the Waqf property, the petition prima facie was not maintainable. The order of the tribunal relegating the petitioner to get the title determined in a competent court of law is perfectly legal and justifiable and do not require any interdiction.

Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, Manakadavu Juma-ath Palli Committee also submitted that the Panchayath had taken the possession of the property from the Karanavar but there is no document on record regarding taking of the possession of the land in dispute by the grama panchayat from karanavar. Such evidence would definitely aid the competent court in deciding the title but not in the proceedings for eviction.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book and of the view that impugned order do not require any interference under Article 226 while exercising power of judicial review for, in arriving at the finding as not only assessment registers were looked into by the court below but it was also noticed that the Waqf was registered on 20/09/1961 and four persons were shown as muthavalli, whereas the date of the application in the gazette was shown as 12/01/1965. A separate sheet was attached showing the particulars of property held by the Government in respect of survey no.55/2A, which created a doubt in the mind of the court regarding the findings. This would create a sufficient doubt in the mind of the Tribunal empowered to entertain and decide the petition of eviction against the unauthorised occupation.

As an upshot of our observations, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. No ground for interference is made out and the petition is dismissed.