IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2009 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 13094 of 2007(H) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- K.T. ABDUL RAHIMAN HAJI, S/O. MAMMUDU HAJI, SECRETARY, KOOMANNA CHEPPATTA JUMA MASJID, MAHALLU COMMITTEE, KOOMANNA P.O., P.O. OLAKARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.R.RAMADAS RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR. 3. ABDUL AZEEZ FAISY, PRESIDENT, KOOMANNA POURA SAMITHI, KOOMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.V. TEKCHAND THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO. 13094/2007-H APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C). NO. 30187/2004 DATED 13/01/2005. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24/02/2006 IN O.S. NO.25/2004, WAKF TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DURING MARCH 2005. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE DETAILED OBJECTION DATED 13/12/2005 BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22/02/2007 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rs/ P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 13094 Of 2007 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 31th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is challenging Ext.P5 order passed by the second respondent, whereby the rights and liberties of two groups of people were decided pursuant to the application preferred by the third respondent as per Ext.P3, when obstruction was stated as being caused by the petitioner for burial of the corpse in the concerned grave yard belonging to the Masjid. The main contention of the petitioner is that respondents 1 and 2 have no authority or jurisdiction to adjudicate any dispute relating to the Wakf property, in view of the bar under Section 87 of the Wakf Act. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the idea of the respondent No.3 and such other people behind him is only to make use of the Wakf properties including the grave yard without effecting contribution, particularly when such people have constructed another Masjid elsewhere which is not correct or sustainable in any circumstances. 2. Obviously, Ext.P5 is only an order passed by the second respondent to meet the law and order situation and it has not decided the relative rights and liberties of the parties concerned in any manner. The petitioner herein also submitted before the respondent No.2 that neither himself nor anybody under him will cause any obstruction for WP(C) No 13094 of 2007 : 2 : burying the corpse in the concerned grave yard, which accordingly was recorded by the second respondent. It was in the said circumstances, that the second respondent, taking note of the specific contentions, clarified in Ext.P5 order itself that no such obstruction would be caused any further and that the complainant before the second respondent (third respondent herein) and persons under him shall effect the necessary contribution for maintenance of the grave yard as and when required by the Committee. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that despite the above specific rider/observation, the third respondent and persons under him are not effecting any contribution and hence are not entitled to get the benefit of Ext.P5 order any further. 3. No counter affidavit has been filed by the third respondent. However, it is seen that an interim order was passed by this Court on 13.4.2007. It has been conceded by petitioner in the writ petition itself that the relative rights and liabilities between the parties in respect of the Wakf properties can be adjudicated only before the Wakf Board or Wakf Tribunal, as the case may be. In such circumstances, if the petitioner is aggrieved of any adverse circumstances resulted from any act of the third respondent or persons under him, the petitioner is at liberty to move the Wakf Board or Tribunal, as the case may, for declaration of the rights and liberties as above and it is for the Wakf WP(C) No 13094 of 2007 : 3 : Board/Tribunal to pass appropriate orders in respect of such Wakf properties and the rights of the persons concerned, after giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned. 4. In the above facts and circumstances the writ petition is disposed of reserving the right of the petitioner to move the Wakf Board or Wakf Tribunal, as the case may be for redressel of his grievances. It is made clear that the interim arrangement made by virtue of Ext.P5 order passed by second respondent, enabling the corpsegoods to be buried in the grave yard will continue till such appropriate orders, by interim measure or otherwise, are passed by the Wakf Board or the Wakf Tribunal as the case may be. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd