High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition disposed; interim order absolute;...
Kuttikkattoor Muslim Jama-ath Committee v The Station House Officer, Medical College Police Station, Kozhikode; District Police Chief, Kozhikode; N.P. Koya Haji; Emkoya Haji; Pabbas Haji; MCSainudheen Haji; Amabdullakkooya; Avkoya Haji; CMamukkooya; Alavi Hajipothathu; Emsaleel; Emabdusamad; Kerala State Waqf Board (Added Respondent)
Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 43230 OF 2023
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- Raja Vijayaraghavan V
- Judgment Date
- 2024-02-06
- Court Decision / Holding
- This writ petition is disposed of. The interim order dated 20.12.2023 is made absolute to prevent further law and order issues. The court does not adjudicate the merits of title or possession; the parties retain rights to pursue civil remedies in appropriate forums.
- Final Disposition
- Writ petition disposed; interim order absolute; merits not adjudicated; rights to approach civil courts preserved.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Apsaleem Mohyudheen
- Nk Yoosuf Haji
- Kuttikkattoor Muslim Jama-ath Committee
Respondents
- The Station House Officer, Medical College Police Station, Kozhikode
- District Police Chief, Kozhikode
- N.P. Koya Haji
- Emkoya Haji
- Pabbas Haji
- MCSainudheen Haji
- Amabdullakkooya
- Avkoya Haji
- CMamukkooya
- Alavi Hajipothathu
- Em.saleel
- Emabdusamad
- Kerala State Waqf Board (added respondent)
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Sayed Mansoor Bafakhy Thangal
- • Ajith Viswanathan
- • P. Viswanathan (Sr.)
Counsels for Respondents
- • R. Sudhish
- • M. Manju
- • S. Rameshbabu (Sr.)
- • P. Ravindranath
- • N. Krishnaprasad
Case Synopsis & Summary
The case concerns a writ petition by the Kuttikkattoor Muslim Jama-ath Committee, a registered Wakf society, challenging the alienation of Wakf property to the Kuttikkattoor Muslim Yatheem Khana in 1991. The Wakf Tribunal held that the alienation without prior permission under Section 51(1)(a) of the Wakf Act, 1995 was prohibited and set aside document 139/1999. The petitioners state they hold possession over multiple properties with buildings including Arabic colleges and schools, supported by Exts P2–P4 showing possession, mutation and payment of taxes. They claim that after Ext. P1 (CRP Wakf) order, the Yatheem Khana handed over possession to the Jama-ath Committee, and since then they have continued administration; however, on 16.12.2023 respondents 3–5 allegedly forced entry, threatened violence, and the petitioners lodged Ext. P9 with the police seeking protection. Respondents counter that since 1999 the properties have been in the possession of the Yatheem Khana and that the petition has been used to obstruct the rightful administration. The court notes it cannot resolve disputed questions of title or possession in a writ proceeding and relies on constitutional and Supreme Court precedents to caution against roving inquiries. The judgment disposes of the petition by making the interim order absolute, without adjudicating the merits, and preserves other remedies in civil courts while attempting to avert further law and order issues.
Provisions of Law Cited
Societies Registration Act, 1860Wakf Act, 1995 – Section 51(1)(a)Constitution of India, Article 226Civil Procedure Code – Order 9, Rule 9
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot decide disputed questions of title or possession; such disputes must be resolved by a civil court
- Disputed questions of title or the right of one group against another in respect of management of religious properties cannot be determined by a writ court (as per Moran v Kerala; para 12)
- Wroving enquiry into merits by the High Court in a writ petition is not proper; where disputes exist, parties should resort to civil remedies (as held in Muralidharan, Moran, Raman)
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
Petitioners contend that they hold possession over the properties designated for religious and charitable purposes and that the 1991 alienation to the Yatheem Khana was invalid for lack of permission under Wakf Act 1995. They rely on Exts P2–P4 showing possession, mutation and building tax payments after an order Ext.P1, and assert that police protection is necessary to prevent forcible dispossession. They dispute the respondents’ claim of exclusive possession since 1999 and emphasize that the Wakf Tribunal’s order and the Division Bench’s confirmation support their continued possession. They ask for a writ mandamus to ensure police protection and to allow continued administration of the properties, while noting the Wakf Board’s actions in cancelling the Yatheem Khana registration. They insist this Court should not adjudicate title while the civil authorities can resolve disputes.
Contentions of Respondents
Respondents assert that the disputed property has remained with the Yatheem Khana since 1999 and that petitioners have no lawful claim to possession. They point to Ext. R4(g) possession certificates and state that the petition was filed with interim relief enabling dispossession. They allege manipulation of records and that the petition seeks to subvert due process. They emphasize that the matter involves title and possession disputes which require civil adjudication, not a writ remedy, and urge restoration of possession to the respondents. They contend that the interim protective order was misused to dispossess the Yatheem Khana and that the court should restore status quo ante. They note Wakf Board actions canceling the Yatheem Khana registration as a governance issue, not a matter for writ relief.
Cited Precedents (3)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| P. R. Muralidharan and Others v. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar and Others | 2006 (4) SCC 501 | Positive | Cited to support the proposition that writ courts cannot determine disputed questions of fact or title and should avoid delving into merits. |
| Moran. M. Baselios Marthoma Mathews II and Others v. State of Kerala and Others | 2007 (6) SCC 517 | Positive | Authority for the principle that disputes of title or possession are not fit for determination by a writ court under Article 226. |
| Raman and Others v State of Kerala | 2019 (1) KHC 169 | Positive | Principles relating to refraining from roving enquiries and directing disputes to Civil Court were followed. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Kuttikkattoor Muslim Jama-ath Committee v The Station House Officer, Medical College Police Station, Kozhikode; District Police Chief, Kozhikode; N.P. Koya Haji; Emkoya Haji; Pabbas Haji; MCSainudheen Haji; Amabdullakkooya; Avkoya Haji; CMamukkooya; Alavi Hajipothathu; Emsaleel; Emabdusamad; Kerala State Waqf Board (Added Respondent) and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.
## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V TUESDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 17TH MAGHA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 43230 OF 2023`**
## **`PETITIONERS:`**
```
1APSALEEMMOHYUDHEEN
AGED60YEARS
S/OABUBACKERHAJI,AROTHHOUSE,KUTTIKKATTOORPO,
KOZHIKODESECRETARY,KUTTIKKATTOORMUSLIMJAMAATH
-
COMMITTEE,PIN673008.
2NKYOOSUFHAJI
AGED56YEARS
S/OSEETHI,NKHOUSE,KUTTIKKATTOORPO,KOZHIKODE,
-
PIN673008.
3KUTTIKKATTOORMUSLIMJAMA-ATHCOMMITTEE
KUTTIKKATTOOR,KOZHIKODEREPRESENTEDBYITSPRESIDENTSRI
-
TMAHAMMEDHAJI,PIN673008.
BYADVS.
SAYEDMANSOORBAFAKHYTHANGAL
AJITHVISWANATHAN(K/580/2016)
P.VISWANATHAN(SR.)(K/000283/1986)
```
## **`RESPONDENTS:`**
```
1THESTATIONHOUSEOFFICER
MEDICALCOLLEGEPOLICESTATION,MEDICALCOLLEGE,
-
KOZHIKODE,PIN673008.
2DISTRICTPOLICECHIEF,KOZHIKODE
OFFICEOFTHEDISTRICTPOLICECHIEF,
-
KOZHIKODE,PIN673004.
3NPKOYAHAJI
AGED80YEARS
S/OABDULRAHMAN,NEDOOLIL,KUPPERIHOUSE,PAINGOTTUPURAM,
-
PERINGOLAMPO,KOZHIKODE,PIN673571.
4EMKOYAHAJI
AGED86YEARS
S/OMAMUHAJI,EDAKKOTHMEETHAL,THAZHADAHOUSE,
-
VELLIPARAMBAPO,KOZHIKODE,PIN673008.
5PABBASHAJI
AGED70YEARS
S/OKUTTIYAMU,WESTERNHOTEL,KUTTIKKATTOORPO,
-
KOZHIKODE,PIN673008.
```
```
WP(C)NO.43230OF2023
```
```
2
```
```
6MCSAINUDHEENHAJI
AGED65YEARS
S/OMUHAMMED,MAYINGOTTUCAHALIL,PUVATTUPARAMBAPO,
-
KOZHIKODE,PIN673008.
7AMABDULLAKKOYA
AGED60YEARS
S/OMUHAMMEDPADINJARAYIL,MUNNANGALTHAZHAM,
-
KUTTIKKATTOORPO,KOZHIKODE,PIN673008.
8AVKOYAHAJI
AGED65YEARS
S/OAHAMMEDHAJI,ACHAMVEETTILHOUSE,POOVATTUPARAMBAP.O,
-
KOZHIKODE,PIN673008.
9CMAMUKKOYA
AGED45YEARS
S/OHAMEED,CHETTIYAMVEETTILHOUSE,KUTTIKKATTOORPO,
-
KOZHIKODE,PIN673008.
10ALAVIHAJIPOTHATHU
AGED60YEARS
S/OMOIDEENKUTTYPOLACHERITHAZHAMHOUSE,KUTTIKKATTOORPO,
-
KOZHIKODE,PIN673008.
11EMSALEEL
AGED35YEARS
S/OEMKOYAHAJI,THAZHADAHOUSE,VELLIPARAMBAP.O,
-
KOZHIKODE,PIN673008
12EMABDUSAMAD
AGED45YEARS
S/OEMMUHAMMEDHAJI,EDAKKOTHMEETHALHOUSE,
-
VELLIPARAMBAPO,KOZHIKODE,PIN673008.
*ADDLR13KERALASTATEWAQFBOARD,
REPRESENTEDBYITSCHIEFEXECUTIVEOFFICER,V.I.PROAD,
KALOOR,COCHIN-682017.
*ADDL.R13ISIMPLEADEDASPERORDERDATED18.01.2024INIA
4/2024INWP(C)43230/2023
BYADVS.
R.SUDHISH
M.MANJU(K/003562/1999)
S.RAMESHBABU(SR.)(R-281)
P.RAVINDRANATH(R-523)
N.KRISHNAPRASAD(K/885/2004)
```
```
WP(C)NO.43230OF2023
```
```
3
```
```
SRI.JAMSHEEDHAFIZ,SC
SRI.P.MSHEMEER,GP
```
```
THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON
06.02.2024,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING:
```
```
WP(C)NO.43230OF2023
```
```
4
```
## **JUDGMENT**
The ‘Kuttikkattoor Muslim Jama-ath Committee’ is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. They contend that they are a registered Wakf entity and are managing properties designated for religious and charitable purposes.
2. The petitioners contend that there was a dispute before the Wakf Tribunal with regard to the alienation of certain properties owned by the petitioners to the Kuttikkattoor Muslim Yatheem Khana in the year 1991. The Tribunal took the view that the alienation without obtaining permission under Section 51(1)(a) of the 1995 Act is prohibited under law and proceeded to set aside the document No.139/1999 by which the property was transferred.
3. The order passed by the Tribunal was challenged before this Court, and a Division Bench of this Court by Ext.P1 judgment dated 1.11.2023 rejected the revision petition and confirmed the order passed by the Tribunal.
4. The petitioners in the writ petition assert that they hold possession of various landed properties, which contain buildings such as
```
WP(C)NO.43230OF2023
```
```
5
```
Arabic Colleges, Aided Schools, commercial buildings etc. They refer to Ext.P2 possession certificate issued by the Village Officer, Ext.P3 order issued by the Secretary, Peruvayal Grama Panchayath and Ext.P4 building tax receipt to substantiate that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, they have affected mutation in their favor and are exercising legal possession.
5. According to the petitioners, on 16.12.2023 while they were performing the duties as the office bearers of the Committee, the respondents 3 to 5 forcefully entered the office premises and threatened the petitioners with physical harm. A representation was submitted before the police, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P9; however, no effective protection was granted. They contend that the party respondents may again trespass into their property and may attempt to take forcible possession of the property which is in their possession. It is on these assertions that this writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-
- a. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order commanding the respondents 1 and 2 to afford proper and adequate police protection to the life and property of the petitioners and other office bearers of the Kuttikkattoor Muslim Jama-ath Committee.
6. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 3 to 12. They contend that from the date of execution of document No.139/1999 on
```
WP(C)NO.43230OF2023
```
```
6
```
25.2.1999, the disputed property has been in the absolute possession and enjoyment of the ‘Kuttikkattoor Muslim Jama-ath Committee’. They refer to Ext.R4(g) possession certificate to substantiate their contention. It is contended that all the establishments situated in the above property are run by the Yatheem Khana Committee. Suppressing the fact that the respondents are in possession of the property and on the strength of Ext.P1 judgment, they have approached this Court and filed this writ petition on 20.12.2023 and secured an interim order of police protection. It is stated that on 23.3.2023, the petitioners, with the assistance of police, broke open the lock of the office buildings and took illegal possession of the same. It is contended that the petitioners have abused the process of this Court with the assistance of the police personnel and have illegally obtained physical possession of the properties possessed by the Yatheem Khana. Immediately thereafter, Ext.R4(j) complaint was lodged before the police and the higher authorities. It is their request before this Court that the petitioners are to be ordered to restore back the possession of the properties as the dispossession had happened pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court.
7. An additional counter affidavit has also been filed by respondents 3 to 12, reiterating the very same contentions.
```
WP(C)NO.43230OF2023
```
```
7
```
8. A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioners stating that pursuant to the order passed by this Court as Ext.P1, the Yatheemkhana Committee has voluntarily handed over the property to the office bearers of the Jama-ath Committee, and since then, the petitioners and the office bearers have been managing and looking after the day to day affairs of the orphanage and other properties.
9. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Wakf Board has placed on record a statement as directed by this Court. It is stated that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the Board, in its meeting dated 9.1.2024 has taken a decision to cancel the registration Number allotted to ‘Kuttikkattoor Muslim Yatheem Khana.’
10. Sri.P.Viswanathan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that in pursuance to the order passed by this Court in CRP(Waqf), possession was peacefully handed over to the petitioners herein, and the petitioners have been affected mutation in their favor and is paying tax. It is submitted that as per the order passed by the Tribunal as confirmed by this Court, there is no justification on the part of the party respondents in obstructing the functioning at the Jama-ath or in threatening the petitioners with bodily harm.
11. Sri.Ramesh Babu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
```
WP(C)NO.43230OF2023
```
```
8
```
respondents 3 to 12 has vehemently opposed the submissions. He would highlight the fact that the writ petition was filed on 20.12.2023 and the petitioners managed to secure an interim order on the same day. Armed with the said interim order, the petitioners, with the connivance of the police, trespassed into the property and forcefully dispossessed the officer bearers of the Muslim Yatheem Khana from the property, which they were managing from 1999. According to the learned senior counsel, nowhere in the writ petition has it been stated in clear terms that after the passing of the judgment by this Court, possession was handed over voluntarily. It was after the counter affidavit was filed, that the petitioners have taken a stand in the reply affidavit that the possession was handed over by the Yatheem Khana members to the Muslim Jama-ath Committee. It is submitted that, it is only just and proper and in the interest of justice that the possession of the property is restored back to the party respondents.
12. The learned Counsel appearing for the Board, however, supported the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.
13. I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the records. I find that a Division Bench of this Court by Ext.P1 judgment has confirmed the order passed by the Tribunal. It is admitted by
```
WP(C)NO.43230OF2023
```
```
9
```
the respondents themselves that the property covered under the deed which was set aside is now in the possession of the petitioners. The petitioners have also produced records before this Court evidencing the fact that they are in possession of the property. The respondents, on the other hand, have a contention that the possession was taken by force on the strength of the interim order passed by this Court.
14. The documents produced by the petitioners before this Court clearly disclose that the revenue authorities and the local authority have acknowledged that the petitioners are in possession of the property in dispute. There is an absolute paucity of materials before this Court to conclude that the party respondents have been dispossessed by the petitioners on the strength of the interim order passed by this Court.
15. The Apex Court in **P. R. Muralidharan and Others v. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar and Others** [2006 (4) SCC 501] has held that this Court cannot determine disputed questions of fact as it is beyond the scope and purport of the jurisdiction of the High Court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
16. In **Moran. M. Baselios Marthoma Mathews II and others v. State of Kerala and Others** [2007 (6) SCC 517], the Apex Court considered the question whether this Court should decide disputed
```
WP(C)NO.43230OF2023
```
```
10
```
questions as regards title or possession of the parties to the lis. It was held as follows in paragraph 12 of the judgment.
## xxxx xxxx xxxx
12. xxxxxxxxxx Such disputed questions in regard to title of the properties or the right of one group against the other in respect of the management of such a large number of Churches could not have - been the subject matter for determination by a writ court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India
17. The principles laid above were followed in **Raman and Others v State of Kerala** [2019 (1) KHC 169].
18. In view of the discussion above, it would not be proper for this Court to conduct a roving enquiry to determine the question as to whether the respondents were illegally dispossessed by the petitioners on the strength of the interim order passed by this Court. The party respondents can very well raise their contentions before the jurisdictional Civil Court if so advised, and secure appropriate remedies by letting in evidence. Such right is reserved, and it is made clear that this Court has not delved into the merit of the contentions raised by the party respondents that they have been forcibly dispossessed.
19. To prevent any further law and order situation arising in the future, this writ petition can be disposed of by making the interim order
```
WP(C)NO.43230OF202311
```
dated 20.12.2023 absolute.
This writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
**RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE**
## **`Sru`**
```
WP(C)NO.43230OF2023
```
```
12
```
## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 43230/2023`**
|`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`||
|---|---|
|`Exhibit P1`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED`|
||`01/11/2023 PASSED IN CRP(WAKF) NO.25 OF 2020 &`|
||`CRP(WAKF) NO.28 OF 2020 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.`|
|`Exhibit P2`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATES WITH`|
||`RESPECT TO PROPERTIES HELD BY THE PETITIONER`|
||`COMMITTEE DATED 12/12/2023 AND 17/06/2022`|
||`ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KUTTIKATTOOR.`|
|`Exhibit P3`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. JC6-566/23 DATED`|
||`21/02/2023 PASSED BY THE SECRETARY, PERUVAYAL`|
||`GRAMA PANCHAYAT.`|
|`Exhibit P4`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPTS DATED`|
||`03/03/2023 EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF BUILDING TAX`|
||`BY THE PETITIONER COMMITTEE CONCERNING THE`|
||`BUILDINGS OWNED BY THEM.`|
|`Exhibit P5`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.`|
||`TLKKKD/1451/2022-G3 DATED 09/06/2022 PASSED BY`|
||`THE TAHSILDARY (LAND RECORDS), KOZHIKODE.`|
|`Exhibit P6`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. A9-3223/2021/KKD`|
||`DATED 06/01/2022 PASSED BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE`|
||`OFFICER, KERALA STATE WAQF BOARD.`|
|`Exhibit P6(a)`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10/01/2023 OF`|
||`THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA STATE WAQF`|
||`BOARD ISSUED AS A CORRIGENDUM CORRECTING A`|
||`TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR IN EXHIBIT P6 ORDER.`|
|`Exhibit P7`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED`|
||`25/01/2022 HAVING NO. A5-1063/CR ISSUED BY THE`|
||`KERALA STATE WAQF BOARD.`|
|`Exhibit P8`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE AGREEMENT EXECUTED`|
||`BY BASHEER HAJI A TENANT WITH THE PETITIONER`|
||`COMMITTEE DATED 08/11/2023.`|
|`Exhibit P9`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY`|
||`THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1ST AND 2ND`|
```
WP(C)NO.43230OF2023
```
```
13
```
||`RESPONDENTS DATED 16/12/2023.`|
|---|---|
|`Exhibit P10`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE BROCHURE RELATING TO THE`|
||`EVENTS SCHEDULED TO BE CONDUCTED BY THE THIRD`|
||`PETITIONER COMMITTEE BETWEEN 16TH JANUARY TO`|
||`19TH JANUARY 2024.`|
|`Exhibit P11`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE BROCHURE PRINTED BY THE`|
||`RESPONDENTS 3 TO 12 RELATING TO A MEETING`|
||`SCHEDULED ON THE SAME DATES AS MENTIONED IN`|
||`EXHIBIT P10.`|
|`Exhibit P12`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED`|
||`14/01/2024 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE`|
||`THE 1ST RESPONDENT.`|
|`Exhibit P13`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11/01/2024`|
||`PASSED BY THE WAKF BOARD.`|
|`RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS`||
|`Exhibit.R4(a)`|`True copy of the Deed No. 139/1999 dated`|
||`25.2.1999.`|
|`Exhibit.R4(d)`|`True copy of the Judgment in O.S. No. 72 of`|
||`2006 dated 24.12.2009.`|
|`Exhibit.R4(i)`|`True copy of the letter issued by Employment`|
||`Provident Fund Organisation, Kozhikode dated`|
||`30.1.2020.`|
|`Exhibit.R4(j)`|`True copy of the complaint filed before the`|
||`Medical College Police Station dated`|
||`23.12.2023.`|
|`Exhibit.R4(k)`|`True copy of the acknowledgement dated`|
||`23.12.2023 issued by the 1st respondent Police.`|
|`Exhibit.R4(m)`|`True copy of the acknowledgement receipt issued`|
||`by the District Police Chief dated 26.12.2023.`|
|`Exhibit.R4(n)`|`True copy of the decision allegedly written in`|
||`the Case Diary kept in the 1st respondent`|
||`Police.`|
|`Exhibit.R4(o)`|`True copy of the letter issued by 3rd`|
```
WP(C)NO.43230OF2023
```
```
14
```
||`petitioner to the Manager of ICICI Bank,`|
|---|---|
||`Medical College branch dated 25.12.2023 praying`|
||`for freezing of account of Kuttikkattoor Muslim`|
||`Yatheemkhana Committee.`|
|`Exhibit R4(l)`|`True copy of the complaint filed before the`|
||`District Police Chief dated 26.12.2023.`|
|`Exhibit R4 (g)`|`True copy of the possession certificate issued`|
||`by the Kuttikkattoor Village Office dated`|
||`25.8.2020.`|
|`Exhibit.R4(h)`|`True copy of the certificate issued by the`|
||`Indian Overseas Bank, Chevayur Branch, Medical`|
||`College, Kozhikode dated 9.6.2020.`|
|`Exhibit-R4(e)`|`True copy of the order dated 13.8.2010 in`|
||`IA.No.37/2010 in OS 72/2006 of the Wakf`|
||`Tribunal in an application under Order 9, Rule`|
||`9.`|
|`Exhibit.R4(f)`|`True copy of the Common Order in W.O.A. No. 42`|
||`of 2019 and W.O.A. No. 56 of 2019 dated`|
||`10-07-2020.`|
|`Exhibit R4(c)`|`True copy of the order of the Honourable Wakf`|
||`Tribunal dismissing the application for`|
||`amendment dated 5.2.2009.`|
|`Exhibit R4(b)`|`True of the Order dated 18.11.2009 in I.A. No.`|
||`436 of 2009 in O.S. No. 72 of 2006, dismissing`|
||`the application filed by the Kuttikkattoor`|
||`Muslim Jama-ath Committee.`|
|`Exhibit R4 (p)`|`True copy of the notice dated 13.12.2014`|
||`regarding the function was inaugurated by the`|
||`then Chief Minister.`|
|`Exhibit R4 (q)`|`True copy of the Renewal of Registration`|
||`Certificate dated 27.06.2023.`|
|`Exhibit R4 (r)`|`True copy of the notice dated 1.11.2023.`|
|`Exhibit R4 (s)`|`True copy of the newspaper item dated`|
```
WP(C)NO.43230OF2023
```
```
15
```
```
13.12.2023inChandrikadailyshowingthe
inaugurationoftheofficebyoneoftheMLA's
oftheLegislativeAssembly.
```
```
ExhibitR4(t)
```
```
Truecopyofthenoticeregardingthefunction
scheduledon26thand27thofDecember,2023.
```