JUDGMENT V. Suri Appa Rao , J.—The Karnataka Board of Wakfs has filed this appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the order dated 14.02.2006 passed in W.P. No. 19834/2004, whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and quashed the impugned orders dated 24.04.2004 and 21.04.2003 passed by the Karnataka Wakf Tribunal and the Karnataka Board of Wakfs respectively. The brief facts leading to this appeal are as under: The property measuring 1 acre 38 guntas of land originally belonged to one late Ibrahim Saheb @ Baji Saheb, who is the grandfather of the first respondent. The said property was purchased in the year 1924 under the registered sale deed. The said Ibrahim Saheb died leaving behind his four sons i.e., Yacoob Sab, Gouse Sab (first respondent's father), Baba Sab and Sabjan Sab. After the death of Ibrahim Saheb, his second son Gouse Sab-father of the first respondent was in actual possession and enjoyment and he was cultivating the said property. While things stood thus, the Wakf Board had issued a certificate that the said property is dedicated as a wakf property. The respondents 1 and 2 therefore questioned the order dated 25.07.1998 passed by the Wakf Board before this Court in W.P. No. 4515/2000. This Court by order dated 30.03.2000 allowed the writ petition and remitted back the matter to the Wakf Board to once again adjudicate the controversy in question and to ascertain whether the said property is wakf property or not. 2. After hearing the parties, the Wakf Board passed an order dated 21.04.2003 to the effect that the said property is a wakf property and it is registered as such under Section 36 of the Wakf Act, 1995. Thereafter, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 challenged the said order before the Wakf Tribunal, Bangalore Division, Bangalore, in Application No. 11/2003. The Wakf Tribunal after recording the evidence of both the parties passed the order dated 24.04.2004 confirming the order dated 21.04.2003 passed by the Wakf Board. 3. Challenging the order dated 24.04.2004 passed by the Wakf Tribunal and the order dated 21.04.2003 passed by the Wakf Board, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed the writ petition before the learned Single Judge. 3. Challenging the order dated 24.04.2004 passed by the Wakf Tribunal and the order dated 21.04.2003 passed by the Wakf Board, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed the writ petition before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed both the impugned orders dated 24.04.2004 passed by the Wakf Tribunal and 21.04.2003 passed by the Wakf Board, on the ground that in the absence of any dedication by mere user, the property could not be a wakf property. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge, the Wakf Board has preferred the present appeal. 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have no right, title or possession over the schedule property. Admittedly, the property originally belonged to one Ibrahim Saheb who died leaving behind his four sons. The first respondent-Sabira Bi claiming to be the daughter of the Gouse Sab, second son of the said Ibrahim Saheb, challenged the order passed by the Wakf Board treating the property as wakf property on the ground that the said property in her possession since 25 years. The said property was gifted to her by her father late Gouse Sab and that the property was never dedicated as a wakf property. 5. In order to substantiate their contention, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 relied on Exs.P1 to P23 before the Wakf Tribunal and examined as many as five witnesses. The Wakf Tribunal examined RWs.1 to RWs.3 and relied on Exs. R1 to R7. The Wakf Tribunal relying upon the evidence of RWs.1 to RWs.3 and the document dated 20.12.1965 held that the property bearing Sy. No. 14/1 measuring 1 acre 38 guntas was dedicated for the purpose of performing religious ceremonies of Moharram and other religious ceremonies relating to Ashurkhana and thus the said property has acquired the characteristics of Wakf under the provisions of Section 36 of the Wakf Act. 6. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that admittedly, Ibrahim Saheb had four sons and during the lifetime of Ibrahim Saheb, he has dedicated the property in the year 1938 itself to the Wakf for conducting Moharram festival. From time immemorial the property is being used as Ashurkhana by the local Muslims of Medahalli Village. 6. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that admittedly, Ibrahim Saheb had four sons and during the lifetime of Ibrahim Saheb, he has dedicated the property in the year 1938 itself to the Wakf for conducting Moharram festival. From time immemorial the property is being used as Ashurkhana by the local Muslims of Medahalli Village. He further submitted that on the application submitted by the Medahalli Muslim Association, the Wakf Board conducted mahazar in the year 1998 which discloses that the property is being used for the celebration of Moharram festivals. Accordingly, the property was included in the Register of Wakfs at Sl. No. 401. The learned Counsel for the appellant further mainly relied upon Ex.R5 the document dated 20.12.1965 which is in the form of No objection letter executed by Yacoob Sab, who is none other than the Uncle of the first respondent, for using the property for religious purpose relating to Babayana Gudi and the said document Ex.R5 was signed by Yacoob Sab and three brothers who are the sons of Ibrahim Saheb. 7. Per contra, the learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that the RTC extract produced by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 clearly indicates that they are the owners and they are in possession of the property. In Ex.P14 RTC extract for the year 1999-2000, the name of respondent No. 1 is entered in Column No. 9 and the first respondent has paid the taxes for the property. It is further submitted that before registering the property as wakf property, procedure contemplated under Sections 4 and 5 of the Wakf Act are not followed. No survey was conducted by the Wakf Board. In the absence of any survey as contemplated under the Act, the property cannot be included and registered as wakf property. It is further submitted that there is no evidence to prove that the property is being used for any religious purposes. Therefore, the orders passed by the Wakf Board and the Wakf Tribunal are liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge has rightly quashed the order passed at Annexures 'Y' and 'Z'. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 8. Writ Petition No. 4515/2000 was filed by respondent Nos. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge has rightly quashed the order passed at Annexures 'Y' and 'Z'. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 8. Writ Petition No. 4515/2000 was filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for quashing of Certification of Registration dated 25.07.1998 on the ground that without notice to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the Addl. Chief Executive Officer of the Wakf Board registered the property in Sy. No. 14/1 admeasuring 1 acre 38 guntas of Medahalli Village, as the property of the Wakf Board and was entered in the Register of Wakfs under the provisions of Section 36 of the Wakf Act, 1995. The learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and quashed Annexure 'A' produced therein i.e., the Certificate of Registration dated 25.07.1998 and remitted the matter to the Wakf Board to reconsider the matter afresh after affording opportunity to respondents 1 and 2. 9. In pursuance of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 4515/2000, the Wakf Board issued public notice dated 23.08.2000 and after issuing notices to the respondents 1 and 2 and the interested parties, recorded the evidence of the witnesses to ascertain whether the property in question is a wakf property or not. In its order dated 21.04.2003, the Wakf Board passed an order holding that the property in question has become a wakf property by user. It is being used for Muslim religious purpose and assumes the nature of Wakf and relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Mohammad Shah Vs. Fasihuddin Ansari and Others, AIR 1956 SC 713 passed the order stating that if the land is being used from time immemorial for religious purpose, then the land is by user of wakf although there is no evidence of express dedication. 10. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 thereafter challenged the order dated 21.04.2003 passed by the Wakf Board before the Wakf Tribunal, Bangalore. The Wakf Tribunal also confirmed the order passed by the Wakf Board- on the ground that as per Ex.R5 Panchayathnama, the property is dedicated for the purpose of performing religious ceremonies of Moharram and for religious ceremonies relating to Ashurkhana. Therefore, it has acquired the characteristics of a Wakf. 11. The Wakf Tribunal also confirmed the order passed by the Wakf Board- on the ground that as per Ex.R5 Panchayathnama, the property is dedicated for the purpose of performing religious ceremonies of Moharram and for religious ceremonies relating to Ashurkhana. Therefore, it has acquired the characteristics of a Wakf. 11. The entire record available in this case clearly indicates that the property in Sy. No. 14/1 admeasuring 1 acre 38 guntas of Medahalli Village was originally purchased by Ibrahim Saheb in the year 1924. Subsequently, he died leaving behind his four sons. Ibrahim Saheb's second son Ghouse Sab is the father of the first respondent. She is claiming the property exclusively for herself on the ground that the other sharers relinquished their shares in the property. Therefore, she has been in possession and enjoyment of the property. The record further indicates that subsequent to the disposal of the earlier writ petition No. 4515/2000, Ex.P15 mutation entry has been made. The matter was remitted back for fresh enquiry, though the certificate of registration was quashed. Therefore, the mutation entry Ex.P15 cannot be taken into consideration to prove that first respondent has been possession and enjoyment of the property. The first respondent has not produced any acceptable evidence to prove the exclusive title and possession over the schedule property. 12. The Wakf Board contended that the property originally belonged to Ibrahim Saheb, grandfather of the first respondent. Even during his lifetime, he allowed the property to be used for religious purpose and not to the other descendants and some of the descendants have signed the document to indicate that the property is being used for Muslim religious purpose. Therefore, the property assumes the nature of wakf. It is further contended that the original owner Ibrahim Saheb executed a deed before the panchas dedicating the property for religious ceremonies relating to Moharram as long back as in the year 1965 itself. It is settled principle of law that wakf may be made in writing or dedication may be oral. Wakf means permanent dedication by a person professing the Muslim faith of any property for any religious, pious and charitable purpose. Admittedly, Ex.R5 document was executed in the year 1965, which is in the form of no objection letter executed by Yacoob Sab who is none other than the uncle of the first respondent for using the property for religious purpose. Admittedly, Ex.R5 document was executed in the year 1965, which is in the form of no objection letter executed by Yacoob Sab who is none other than the uncle of the first respondent for using the property for religious purpose. The other sharers i.e., the sons of Ibrahim Saheb also affixed their thumb impressions to Ex.R5 document. The document clearly indicates that the property mentioned in the document was dedicated by the ancestors of Yacoob Sab for Moharram festival. The property involved is the land relating to Babayanagudi from the time of Ibrahim Saheb who purchased the property. The first respondent in her evidence before the Tribunal has admitted that the Ashurkarna is also called as Babayanagudi. The recitals in Ex.R5 further indicates that the land is left for Babayanagudi for the purpose of religious activities. It further reveals that even prior to the execution of Ex.R5 in the year 1965, the land is dedicated for the purpose of religious activities relating to Babayanagudi and the same was supported by Yacoob Sab, Sabjan Sab and Ghouse Sab children of original owner Ibrahim Saheb. Relying on the recitals of Ex.R5 about user of the property for religious purpose signed by all the sharers and attested by the witnesses clearly indicates that the property was dedicated for the purpose of performing the religious ceremonies of Moharram and other related festivals. The Wakf Board as well as the Wakf Tribunal have based on the evidence available rightly came to the conclusion that the land has been used from time immemorial for religious purpose, then the land is by user wakf although there is no express dedication. Considering the evidence of the witnesses and the nature of use of the property, the Wakf Board has rightly registered the property as wakf property under the provisions of Section 36 of the Wakf Act. 13. The record further indicates that the third respondent-Medahalli Muslim Association submitted an application for registration of the Wakf on 22.07.1998 before the Wakf Board, on the basis of which, the Wakf Board has rightly registered the property as wakf property under the provisions of Section 36 of the Act. 14. 13. The record further indicates that the third respondent-Medahalli Muslim Association submitted an application for registration of the Wakf on 22.07.1998 before the Wakf Board, on the basis of which, the Wakf Board has rightly registered the property as wakf property under the provisions of Section 36 of the Act. 14. The appellant and the Wakf Tribunal being the fact finding authorities assessed the evidence and recorded the finding that the land had been used from time immemorial for the purpose of performing religious ceremonies of Moharram and other religious ceremonies constitute wakf by the user. Therefore, the orders dated 21.04.2003 and 24.04.2004 passed by the Wakf Board as well as the Wakf Tribunal respectively are neither perverse nor illegal and cannot be interfered with in exercise of the power under judicial review. In view of the above findings, the appeal filed by the Wakf Board is allowed. Consequently, the writ petition filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is dismissed.