IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2011 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1932 CRP.No. 107 of 2006(I) ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03/09/2005 IN IA 213/2005 IN OA.2/2001 of WAKF TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM .................... REVN. PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------- 1. ALAPPUZHA MUHIYIDEEN MASJID ASSOCIATION, REGISTER NO.3908 (KERALA WAKF BOARD), ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY. 2. MR.B.A.RASHEED, PRESIDENT, MUHIYIDHEEN MASJID ASSOCIATION, REGISTER NO.3908, SANATHANAM WARD, ALAPPUZHA-1. 3. MR.N.MUHAMMED RAJA, GENERAL SECRETARY, MMA REG.NO.3908, DO. DO. 4. E.SULAIMAN, VICE PRESIDENT, DO. DO. 5. A.SHAHEED, JOINT SECRETARY, DO. DO. 6. MR.NOORUDHEEN, TREASURER, DO. DO. 7. MR.B.HAMZA, EXECUTIVE MEMBER, DO. DO. 8. MR.M.KABEER, EXECUTIVE MEMBER, DO. DO. 9. MR.B.A.RAHEEM, EXECUTIVE MEMBER, DO. DO. 10. S.SALY, EXECUTIVE MEMBER, DO. DO. CRP.No. 107 of 2006(I) 11. K.M.ABDUL KHADER, EXECUTIVE MEMBER, DO. DO. 12. A.K.AHAMMED KUNJU, EXECUTIVE MEMBER, DO. DO. 13. MR.A.NIZAR, EXECUTIVE MEMBER, DO. DO. 14. MR.EAHIYA, EXECUTIVE MEMBER, DO. DO. 15. MR.NOWSHAD, EXECUTIVE MEMBER, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH SRI.YOUSEF ALI SRI.D.B.AJAYAN SRI.R.AZAD BABU SRI.P.R.VENKETESH RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: -------------------------------- 1. ABDULKHADER, SON OF MAMMY, AGED 65, VELIMPARAMBIL HOUSE, SANATHANAM WARD, ALAPPUZHA (CHAIRMAN ACTION COUNCIL). 2. EDATHIL BABU, SON OF ESAMILKUNJU, EDATHIL HOUSE, SANATHAN WARD, ALAPPUZHA (GENERAL CONVENOR ACTION COUNCIL). 3. A.SHERIEF, EXECUTIVE MEMBER, MUHIYIDHEEN MASJID ASSOCIATION, REGISTER NO.3908, SANATHAM WARD, ALAPPUZHA-1. 4. RIYAS.M.O, (CHAIRMAN MAHAL SAMRAKSHANA SAMITHI), SON OF THAJUDHEEN, SEBOOR MANZIL, POOTHOPE WARD, ARAYAD TALUK, ALAPPUZHA. 5. SHANAVAS (CONVENOR, MAHAL SAMRAKSHANA SAMITHI), SON OF MUHAMMED KUNJU, CHAVADIYIL HOUSE, ARAYAD TALUK, ALAPPUZHA. CRP.No. 107 of 2006(I) ADDL. 6. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA WAKF BOARD, ERNAKULAM. (IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 25.07.06 IN I.A. NO.2016/06 IN CRP No. 107 OF 2006.) R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.P.J.JOSEPH SRI.GEORGE MATHEW SMT.M.P.SUNITHA BEEGUM SRI.VIJO JOSE R5 BY ADV. SRI.A.AHZAR ADDL.R6 BY SRI.P.A.ABDUL JABBAR, SC, WAKF BOARD SRI.M.M.SAIDU MUHAMMED,SC,WAKF BOARD THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- C.R.P.No. 107 of 2006 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of March, 2011 O R D E R Basant, J. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 3rd September, 2005 passed by the Wakf Tribunal, Kollam in O.A.No.2/2001. The Tribunal took the view that it has jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed in the O.A and proceeded to pass the impugned preliminary order directing the framing of a scheme. When the matter came up before this Court, the Division Bench passed an order of reference dated 16th October, 2009. Accordingly, the matter came up for consideration before the three Judges Bench and by order dated 30th November, 2010 passed by the said Full Bench, it was held that the Original Application before the Wakf Tribunal is not maintainable and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the Original Application. After answering the reference thus, the matter has been sent back to this Division Bench for appropriate further steps. 2. In the light of the view taken by the Full Bench that the Original Application is not maintainable, this revision petition can only be allowed and the Original Application only deserves to be dismissed. When the CRP.107/06 - 2 - matter came up for hearing on the last date of posting, there was no representation for respondents 1 and 2, petitioners in the Original Application before the Wakf Tribunal. Accordingly, the Writ Petition was posted to this date. Today also when the matter came up for hearing, there is no representation for respondents 1 and 2 herein, who are the petitioners in the Original Application. Evidently they have realised the futility of continuing the dispute. The Full Bench has answered the reference unambiguously holding that the Wakf Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the Original Application. This Revision Petition only deserves to be allowed and the Original Application before the Wakf Tribunal only deserves to be dismissed following the finding of the Full Bench that the Wakf Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with the Original Application. In the result; (a) This revision petition is allowed. (b) The impugned order is set aside. (c) On the basis of the order passed by the Full Bench, the Original Application before the Wakf Tribunal shall stand dismissed. The parties shall suffer their respective costs. R.BASANT, JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE vgs