High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2020-02-04Dismissed

Muhammed Navab T.V. v. Kariath Kunhaammed, Ramath Yoosaf and Kerala State Wakf Board (CRP(WAKF) Nos. 460/2018; 449/2018; 721/2018), High Court of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:CRP(WAKF).460/2018; CRP(WAKF).449/2018; CRP(WAKF).721/2018

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A. M. Shaffique
Mary Joseph
Judgment Date: 2020-02-04
Court Decision / Holding: All three revisions are dismissed. The Wakf Tribunal’s eviction orders are sustained, and the civil revisions challenging those orders are not entertained further.
Final Disposition: Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

MUHAMMED NAVAB T.V.
K.V. PADMANABHAN

Respondents

KARIAT KUNHAHAMMED
RAMATH YOOSAF
THE KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. T.H. Abdul Azeez
• Sri. T.K. Kunhabdulla
• Sri. N.K. Sanath Kumar

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. K.M. Firoz
• Sri. T.P. SajidSC
• Sri. M. Shajna
• Sri. T.K. Saidalikutty

Case Synopsis & Summary

This decision consolidates three Civil Revision Petitions under the Wakf Act challenging eviction orders issued by the Wakf Tribunal, Kozhikode. The central issue is the maintainability and jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal to entertain eviction petitions under the Wakf Act, 1995, especially after the 2013 amendments. The petitioners contended that eviction petitions fall outside the Tribunal’s remit, arguing pre-amendment authority such as Faseela M. v. Munnerul Islam Madrasa Committee (2014) 16 SCC 38, which suggested Civil Court jurisdiction for Wakf properties not squarely covered by Sections 6 and 7 of the Act. The court traces evolution of law, noting that Section 83(1) of the Wakf Act was amended by Act 27 of 2013 to state that Tribunals shall handle disputes relating to Wakf, eviction of tenants, and related rights, defining jurisdiction accordingly. Citing Rajasthan Wakf Board v. Devki Nandan Pathak and Punjab Wakf Board v. Sham Singh Harike, the bench emphasizes that the amended provision assigns eviction matters to Tribunals. In light of these authorities, the court holds that the eviction suits filed in 2015 are maintainable before the Wakf Tribunal, and thus the revisions fail. The petitions are dismissed and the Wakf Tribunal’s eviction orders stand.

Provisions of Law Cited

Wakf Act, 1995, Section 83(1)Wakf Act, 1995, Sections 6 & 7Wakf (Amendment) Act, 2013 (Act 27 of 2013) amending Section 83(1)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants urged that the Wakf Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain eviction petitions under the Wakf Act, arguing that, prior to amendment, Civil Courts had jurisdiction for eviction of tenants in Wakf property not covered under Sections 6 and 7. They relied on Faseela M. v. Munnerul Islam Madrasa Committee (2014) 16 SCC 38 and Ramesh Gobindram v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf (2010) 8 SCC 726 to contend that Civil Courts could adjudicate such disputes. They contended that Section 83(1) had not yet been properly applicable or interpreted, and that the amendment’s effect should be limited. They urged the need for a tribunal-centric approach, which would deprive Civil Courts of jurisdiction over Wakf disputes including eviction.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that the Wakf Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction under amended Section 83(1) to determine disputes relating to Wakf or Wakf property, including eviction of a tenant, and that no Civil Court proceedings lie. They relied on post-amendment authorities, including Rajasthan Wakf Board v. Devki Nandan Pathak and Punjab Wakf Board v. Sham Singh Harike, to emphasize that Tribunal jurisdiction is now established for eviction matters under the Wakf Act.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Faseela M v. Munnerul Islam Madrasa Committee and another	(2014) 16 SCC 38	Distinguished	Pre-amendment authority cited to argue Civil Court jurisdiction for eviction not covered by Sections 6-7; however, the amendment to Section 83(1) modifies the jurisdiction, reducing applicability of Faseela’s reasoning post-amendment.
Ramesh Gobindram v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf	(2010) 8 SCC 726	Partly Overruled / Limited	Cited as an earlier authority supporting civil court jurisdiction pre-amendment; post-amendment, its reasoning is limited by the updated Section 83(1).
Rajasthan Wakf Board v. Devki Nandan Pathak and Others	(2017) KHC 6388	Positive	Authorities the Tribunal’s jurisdiction under amended Section 83(1) to decide Wakf-related disputes, including eviction.
Punjab Wakf Board v. Sham Singh Harike and Another	(2019) 4 SCC 698	Positive	Affirms the amended scope of Section 83(1) and Tribunal’s exclusive jurisdiction over eviction and related matters.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

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 Muhammed Navab T.V. v. Kariath Kunhaammed, Ramath Yoosaf and Kerala State Wakf Board (CRP(WAKF) Nos. 460/2018; 449/2018; 721/2018), High Court of Kerala 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 A.M.SHAFFIQUE** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH** **TUESDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 15TH MAGHA, 1941** **CRP(WAKF).No.460 OF 2018** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.03.2018 IN OS 50/2015 OF WAKF TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE** ## **PETITIONER/1ST DEFENDANT:** **MUHAMMED NAVAB T.V, S/O.IBRAHIM, AGED 38 YEARS, ALFA MANZIL, BEYPORE VILLAGE, NADUVATTOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK.** **BY ADVS. SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ SRI.T.K.KUNHABDULLA** ## **RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS & 2ND DEFENDANT:** **1 KARIAT KUNHAHAMMED, S/O.ABDULLA, AGED 70 YEARS, SECRETARY, VILLIAPALLI MUSLIM JAMA-ATH, VILLIAPPALLI AMSOM, THIRUMANA DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, P.O.VILLIAPPALLI, VATAKARA-673 247. 2 RAMATH YOOSAF S/O.MOIDU, AGED 69 YEARS, PRESIDENT, VILLIAPALLI MUSLIM JAMA-ATH, VILLIAPPALLI AMSOM, THIRUMANA DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, P.O.VILLIAPPALLI, VATAKARA-673 247. 3 THE KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, V.I.P. ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI-682 017. R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ R1 BY ADV. T.P.SAJIDSC R1 BY ADV. SMT.M.SHAJNA R3 BY ADV. T.P.SAJID,SC R3 BY ADV. SHRI.T.K.SAIDALIKUTTY, SC, WAQF BOARD** **THIS CRP (WAKF ACT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.02.2020, ALONG WITH CRP(WAKF).449/2018, CRP(WAKF).721/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP(WAKF).No.460 OF 2018 & con.cases 2 **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH** **TUESDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 15TH MAGHA, 1941** **CRP(WAKF).No.449 OF 2018** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN OS 49/2015 DATED 02-03-2018 OF WAKF TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE** ## **PETITIONER/1ST DEFENDANT:** **1 MUHAMMED NAVAB T.V AGED 38 YEARS S/O IBRAHIM, ALFA MANZIL, BEYPORE VILLAGE, NADUVATTOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK.** **BY ADVS. SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ SRI.T.K.KUNHABDULLA** ## **RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS & 2ND DEFENDANT:** **1 KARIAT KUNHAHAMMED AGED 70 YEARS, S/O ABDULLA, SECRETARY, VILLIAPALLI MUSLIM JAMA-ATH, VILLIAPPALLI AMSOM, THIRUMANA DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, P.O. VILLIAPPALLI, VATAKARA-673 247.** **2 RAMATH YOOSAF AGED 69 YEARS, S/O MOIDU, PRESIDENT, VILLIAPALLI MUSLIM JAMA-ATH, VILLIAPPALLI AMSOM, THIRUMANA DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, P.O. VILLIAPPALLI, VATAKARA-673 247. 3 THE KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, V.I.P. ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI-682 017.** CRP(WAKF).No.460 OF 2018 & con.cases 3 **R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ R1 BY ADV. T.P.SAJIDSCBO R1 BY ADV. SMT.M.SHAJNA** **THIS CRP (WAKF ACT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.02.2020, ALONG WITH CRP(WAKF).460/2018, CRP(WAKF).721/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP(WAKF).No.460 OF 2018 & con.cases 4 # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH** **TUESDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 15TH MAGHA, 1941** ## **CRP(WAKF).No.721 OF 2018** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OS 31/2016 DATED 24-02-2018 OF WAKF TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/1ST DEFENDANT:** **K.V.PADMANABHAN AGED 72 YEARS S/O. KELUKKUTTY, KACHERI VEETTIL, KINASSERY, KOZHIKODE (SHOP NO. 6/558, PUTHIYEDATH BUILDING, NEAR ASOKA HOSPITAL, BANK ROAD, KALATHILKUNNU AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE)** **BY ADV. SRI.N.K.SANATH KUMAR** ## **RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS,2ND DEFENDANT:** **1 KARIAT KUNHAMMED AGED 69 YEARS, S/O. ABDULLA, SECRETARY, VILLIAPPALLY MUSLIM JUMA ATH, VILLIAPPALLY AMSOM, THIRUMANA DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK. 2 RAMATH YOUSUF, AGED 68 YEARS, PRESIDENT , VILLIAPPALLY MUSLIM JUMA-ATH, VILLIAPPALLY AMSOM, THIRUMANA DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK-673 103** **3 THE KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, VIP ROAD, KALOOR, COCHIN-682 017** CRP(WAKF).No.460 OF 2018 & con.cases 5 **R1-2 BY ADV. SMT.M.SHAJNA R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ R3 BY SRI.T.P.SAJID, SC, KERALA STATE WAQF BOARD R3 BY ADV. SHRI.T.K.SAIDALIKUTTY, SC, WAQF BOARD** **THIS CRP (WAKF ACT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.02.2020, ALONG WITH CRP(WAKF).449/2018, CRP(WAKF).460/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP(WAKF).No.460 OF 2018 & con.cases 6 ## **ORDER** ## **[ CRP(WAKF).460/2018, CRP(WAKF).449/2018, CRP(WAKF).721/2018 ]** ## **Dated this the 4th day of February 2020** ## **Shaffique,J.** These three revisions involve a short question relating to maintainability of an order passed by the WAKF Tribunal ordering eviction of the tenant in respect of the petition schedule premises. The only question that had been urged is that the WAKF Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to entertain a petition for eviction. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner had placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in **Faseela M v. Munnerul Islam Madrasa** ## **Committee and another [(2014) 16 SCC 38]** wherein Apex Court held that the jurisdiction of Civil Court is not barred for evicting a tenant from the WAKF property which is not CRP(WAKF).No.460 OF 2018 & con.cases **==> picture [8 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** covered under Sections 6 and 7 of the 1995 Act. Apparently, **Faseela's case** (supra) was filed prior to the amendment to Section 83. That apart, the said case was decided based on judgment in **Ramesh Gobindram v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf [(2010) 8 SCC 726]** which also related to a case prior to the amendment. The Apex Court placed reliance on the said judgment and observed that Civil Court's jurisdiction is not barred for adjudicating a dispute between landlord and tenant in respect of the Waqf property. Section 83(1) of the 1995 Act had underwent an amendment with effect from 1.11.2013 which in fact had been taken note of in **Faseela's case** (supra). But still, the statutory provision was not made applicable and the Apex Court had placed reliance on an earlier judgment in **Gobindram's case** (supra). The amended provision 83(1) reads as under; CRP(WAKF).No.460 OF 2018 & con.cases 8 “The State Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette , constitute as many Tribunals as it may think fit, for the determination of any dispute, question or other matter relating to a wakf or wakf property, eviction of a tenant or determination of rights and obligations of the lessor and the lessee of such property, under this Act and define the local limits and jurisdiction of such Tribunals.” When the statute clearly envisages that eviction of a tenant also should be entertained by the Tribunal, there is no two way of looking at it. 3. Further the Apex Court in **Rajasthan** **Wakf Board v. Devki Nandan Pathak and Others** **[(2017) KHC 6388]** placing reliance on amended Section 83 (1) held that in so far as section 83 of the Act empowers the Tribunal to determine any question, dispute or other matter relating to Wakf or Wakf property under the Act, no suit or other legal proceedings shall lie in any Civil Court in respect of any dispute, question or other matter relating to any Wakf. It was therefore held that the Tribunal alone has jurisdiction to entertain such disputes. CRP(WAKF).No.460 OF 2018 & con.cases 9 ## 4. Learned counsel for the appellant also placed reliance on judgment of the Apex Court in **Punjab Wakf Board v. Sham Singh Harike and Another [(2019) 4 SSC 698]** wherein the Apex Court at paragraphs 44 and 45 held as under; “44. S.83 sub-section(1) has been substituted by Act27 of 2013. Substituted sub-section (1) is as follows; “S.83(1). The State Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute as many Tribunals as it may think fit, for the determination of any dispute, question or other matter relating to a waqf or waqf property, eviction of a tenant or determination of rights and obligations of the lessor and the lessee of such property, under this Act and define the local limits and jurisdiction of such Tribunals” 45. S.83 sub-section (1) specifically included eviction of a tenant or determination of rights or obligations of the lessor and lessee or such property.” ## 5. Having regard to the aforesaid law laid down by the Apex Court and having regard to the specific provision that had been enacted in terms of Section 83(1), we are of the view that the suits filed in the year 2015 for eviction was maintainable before the Wakf Tribunal and therefore contention of the Revision Petitioners cannot be sustained. CRP(WAKF).No.460 OF 2018 & con.cases 10 In the result, since no grounds are made out for interference, all these revisions are dismissed. **Sd/A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE Sd/MARY JOSEPH JUDGE** **==> picture [15 x 6] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----**<br> sn<br>**----- End of picture text -----**<br> CRP(WAKF).No.460 OF 2018 & con.cases 11 ## **APPENDIX OF CRP(WAKF) 721/2018** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF KOOLI KACHIT DT. 2.9.1992 ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF ASSIGNMENT DEED NO. 691/96 ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF ASSIGNMENT DEED NO. 692/96 ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY WAKF BOARD. ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF WAKF REGISTER.** **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL** **sn** **//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE**