RP.No.1352 of 2024 in WP(C) No.16900 of 2023 1 2025:KER:29515 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1947 RP NO. 1352 OF 2024 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN WP(C) NO.16900 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA REVIEW PETITIONER: KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER VIP ROAD, KALOOR KOCHI ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 682017 BY ADV JAMSHEED HAFIZ RESPONDENTS: 1 THANKAMANI W/O LATE SADASIVAN 6/1359, MAHAJANAVADI KOCHI ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682002 2 HAJI AHAMMED IBRAHIM SAITS TRUST MATTANCHERY, KOCHI ERNAKULAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY MANAGING TRUSTEE, PIN - 682002 3 URBAN POVERTY ALLEVIATION DEPARTMENT EAST CDS (UPAD), CORPORATION OF COCHIN CORPORATION BUILDING, KOCHI ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682018 ADVOCATE MATHEW SEBASTIAN FOR R1 BY ADV K. JANARDHANA SHENOY RP.No.1352 of 2024 in WP(C) No.16900 of 2023 2 2025:KER:29515 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: RP.No.1352 of 2024 in WP(C) No.16900 of 2023 3 2025:KER:29515 VIJU ABRAHAM, J. -------------------- RP.No.1352 of 2024 in WP(C) No.16900 of 2023 ------------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2025 JUDGMENT The above writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to execute sale deed in respect of 1.630 cents of land in Survey No.63/1 of Mattanchery Village in favour of the petitioner at the earliest, at any rate, within an outer limit of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The said direction was issued taking note of the submission of the 1st respondent Wakf Board that they have absolutely no objection in the 2nd respondent executing a sale deed in favour of the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent also submitted that necessary sale deed will be RP.No.1352 of 2024 in WP(C) No.16900 of 2023 4 2025:KER:29515 executed in favour of the petitioner without any delay. 3. The present review petition has been filed aggrieved by the said recording in paragraph 4 of the judgment that the Kerala State Wakf Board have no objection in the 2nd respondent executing a sale deed in favour of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the review petitioner would submit that said submission was made only due to an omission and that going by the amendment carried out to the Wakf Act by incorporating Section 51A amended Act any gift, sale or exchange, mortgage of any immovable property which is wakf property shall be void. But it is to be seen that the amendment to the Act came into force of 2013. A perusal of Ext.P2 order reveal that the Wakf Board has granted permission to sell the properties comprised in survey Nos.63/1,176/1,176/2,197/1 and the said decision is taken as early as on 1.8.1995 RP.No.1352 of 2024 in WP(C) No.16900 of 2023 5 2025:KER:29515 and 14.7.1999 by the Wakf Board much prior to the amendment carried out to the Wakf Act. 4. A Division Bench of this Court considered almost identical situation and directed the Wakf Board to transfer the property in the name of the petitioner therein in WP(C) No.36695 of 2024. Paragraphs 3,4 and 5 of the judgment reads as follows: “3. Mr.Jamsheed Hafiz, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Waqf Board submits that as per the amendment caused in the Waqf Act in the year 2013 by introducing Section 51 A, the Waqf Board is debarred from selling its properties therefore under the provisions of the Act, the property could not be transferred. However, there was no such bar before the incorporation of the aforesaid section as any sale made was at the best, held voidable, but, did not deny the fact with regard to the sale in favor of other persons and further transfer. 4. We are of the view that when the sale had already been completed long time back on receipt of the money, it was incumbent upon the Waqf Board to transfer the property. Petitioners cannot be faulted with in case there is an amendment as the amendment did not relate back to the period when the auction was conducted as it will have only prospective effect. 5. In this view of the matter, Ext.P12 is quashed. Waqf Board is directed to transfer the property in the name of the petitioner, being the legal heir of the RP.No.1352 of 2024 in WP(C) No.16900 of 2023 6 2025:KER:29515 deceased, within a period of one month from the date of the receipt of the copy of the judgment.” 5. Taking into consideration the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner that the submission that they have no objection in the 2nd respondent executing a sale deed in favour of the petitioner is only by a mistake, I am inclined to review the to the extent of deleting that portion of paragraph 4 of the judgment that the Wakf Board has no objection in the 2nd respondent executing a sale deed in favour of the petitioner. Whatever that be since a decision has been taken by the Wakf Board as early as in 1.8.1995 and 14.7.1999 and the land value has already been deposited by the petitioner, as evident from Ext.P3, I am of the view that the direction issued by this Court need not be reviewed. Since the time limit fixed by the judgment under review is already over a direction is issued to respondents 1 and 2 to execute sale RP.No.1352 of 2024 in WP(C) No.16900 of 2023 7 2025:KER:29515 deed in respect of 1.630 cents of land in Survey No.63/1 of Mattachery Village in favour of the petitioner at the earliest, at any rate, within an outer limit of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the review order. Since there is no substantial modification of the final direction in the judgment, the contempt of court case is not closed and posted after vacation. Review petition is allowed as above. sd/- VIJU ABRAHAM,JUDGE pm