2025:KER:23343 RP NO. 326 OF 2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1946 RP NO. 326 OF 2025 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.01.2025 IN CRP(WAKF) NO.43 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER: FAISAL. K AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. SUBAIDA, RESIDING AT KOCHAN HOUSE, PUNATHIL, UDUMBUNTHALA (P.O), THEKKE THRIKKARIPPUR AMSOM AND DESOM, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT., PIN - 671311 BY ADVS. JAWAHAR JOSE SANAND RAMAKRISHNAN GEORGE JAMES VATTATHARA GREGORY PRINCE MYLADI RESPONDENT (S)/RESPONDENTS : 1 MUHAMMED KUNHI AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. T.M. SULAIMAN RESIDING AT THEKKEPEEDIKAYIL HOUSE, THRIKKARIPPUR AMSOM AND DESOM, UDUMBUNTHALA (P.O), KASARAGOD DISTRICT., PIN - 671311 2 SHAKEEL AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. S.K.P. MAHMUD, 2025:KER:23343 RP NO. 326 OF 2025 2 RESIDING AT THAYYIL PURAYIL HOUSE, OLAVARA, UDUMBUNTHALA (P.O), THEKKE THRIKKARIPPUR AMSOM AND DESOM, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT., PIN - 671311 3 MUHAMMED AGED 69 YEARS S/O. T.T.P.MOIDU, RESIDING AT CHINGARON HOUSE, JUBILI ROAD, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN - 670104 4 THE KERALA STATE WAQF BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, VIP ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI., PIN - 682017 5 E.ASHRAF AGED 62 YEARS S/O. T.T.P. MOIDU, THEYATHERY, THANA (P.O), KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN - 670012 6 FAHAD T.K. AGED 31 YEARS S/O. SAMEER ALI. C, RESIDING AT MARIYAMBI MAHAL, UDUMBUNTHALA (P.O), THRIKKARIPPUR AMSOM AND DESOM, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT., PIN - 671311 7 THAYYIL PURAYIL ABDULLAH AGED 64 YEARS S/O. P. MOHAMMED KUNHI, RESIDING AT AL-NOOR, UDUMBUNTHALA (P.O), SOUTH THRIKKARIPUR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT., PIN - 671311 SRI JAMSHEED HAFIZ SC WAQF THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:23343 RP NO. 326 OF 2025 3 ORDER AMIT RAWAL, J. 1. Review petition has been filed primarily on the ground that this Court while rendering the judgment noticed that the 7th respondent was not a party in the revision petition whereas he was arrayed. The import of the judgment of this Court was not on account of non impleadment of the 7th respondent as party in the revision petition, but in the civil suit ie., WOS No.60 of 2020 wherein the petitioner had challenged the title of the property by arraying Muhammed Kunhi as defendant No.1. Respondent No.7 alleged to have purchased the property filed a writ petition bearing No.19268 of 2021 for a direction to grant building permit in his favour, which was allowed vide judgment dated 13.12.2021. Petitioner herein, on acquiring the knowledge that the 7th respondent in the revision petition had set up a title, filed writ appeal bearing No.126 of 2023, which has been disposed by the Division Bench of this Court on 07.11.2024 with the 2025:KER:23343 RP NO. 326 OF 2025 4 following observations: 4. According to us, for the grant of planning permission, the issue as to the right of Respondent No.1/Petitioner to the subject property will have to be considered by the Panchayat. The question as regards the right of Respondent No.1/Petitioner flowing from Respondent-Wakf Board is under consideration in the Revision. However, Respondent No.1/Petitioner is not a party in the said Revision. Considering the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the Review Petition, it is clear that the rights of the Appellant will be decided in the proceedings taken before the Tribunal, which will ultimately affect the claim of Respondent No.1/Petitioner seeking building permit. The learned counsel for the Original Petitioner states that he will make necessary application in that regard in the pending Revision application. 5. Accordingly, we dispose of the appeal, leaving it open to Respondent No.1 to make necessary application for building permission, subject to the outcome of the pending Revision, wherein the title of Respondent No.1/Petitioner in the subject property is being considered. It is open to Respondent No.1/Petitioner to make a request to the Division Bench taking up the Revision to take up the matter at an early date since the building permission is being held up, and it is for the Division Bench to decide whether to do so. This course of action of permitting the Respondent No.1/Original Petitioner to apply to be joined as a party respondent even if the Petitioner was not a party before the Tribunal 2025:KER:23343 RP NO. 326 OF 2025 5 is only in the peculiar circumstances, in light of the clarification given by the learned Single Judge in the Review Petition.” 2. Contention raised in the review petition is that there is an error apparent on record on the premise that defendant No.1 did not disclose in the original suit regarding the acquisition of title set by the respondent No.7 in the revision petition and petitioner in the writ petition bearing No.19268 of 2021. It is a matter of record that the civil suit of 2020 has been decided only in May, 2024. All the proceedings noticed above are subsequent to the institution of suit and came to a knowledge of the petitioner but did not make any effort to implead the 7th respondent whose title had come under the cloud and there was already a direction by the Division Bench. The learned Tribunal dismissed the suit on account of locus. This Court noticing the fact that two individuals have set up a title on the property observed as under in the revision: 4. Even otherwise also, on merits, the learned Tribunal noticed that the plaintiffs had not placed on record any 2025:KER:23343 RP NO. 326 OF 2025 6 material to show, except the list of the properties, that the properties were in ownership. The question of auction clearing out the dues of income tax would be meaningless, for, prima facie in a case for declaration, the Jama-ath running the Wakf has to file a suit and not in the personal capacity. Even if there is a Secretary, no resolution has also been placed on record before the Tribunal to show that, they had been given a right to file a suit in their individual capacity. Finding of fact and law arrived on this point, therefore, do not require any interference, both on merits as well as on the legal preposition as noticed above. The aforementioned findings are not only on account of non impleadment but also on the locus. We do not find any error apparent on record. It is an attempt to re-agitate the issue under the garb of the review petition. Petition stands dismissed. Sd/- AMIT RAWAL, JUDGE Sd/- K. V. JAYAKUMAR, JUDGE nak