JUDGMENT : Dr. Manjula Chellur, J. These two appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 29.5.2008. The appellant in these appeals is the writ petitioner in the Writ Petitions. Brief facts that led to filing of the present appeals pertinent to be mentioned here, in order to understand the specific stand of the parties are as under: 2. According to the appellants, 81 cents of land in R.S.No.2/3 of Chelora Amsom Desom, Kannur originally belonged to Manayakandi Puthiyapurayil Mammikutty Haji of Koodali Amsom, Kottayam Taluk. He said to have created a Wakf of the property in favour of Vattapoyil Niskara Palli (Mamba-Ul-Islam) as per document No.17/1924 dated 18.7.1924. The local committee Mamba-Ul-Islam situated at Vattapoyil, Kannur District is a Wakf registered before the Kerala State Wakf Board. Originally, name of the Wakf was “Vattapoyil Niskara Palli” and later, the name was changed as “Mamba-Ul-Islam Committee”. 3. According to the writ petitioner, husband of the third respondent by name one Aboobacker Haji had obtained a purchase certificate in respect of the said property in a proceedings before the Land Tribunal, Edakkad on 21.5.1975 vide purchase certificate No.161/1975 in O.S.No.771/1973. Third respondent is the legal heir of said Aboobacker Haji, as he is no more as on the date of filing of the Writ Petitions. According to the writ petitioner, Aboobacker Haji, during his life time said to have obtained a purchase certificate suppressing the material facts before the Land Tribunal that the property in question actually is a Wakf property and the entire proceedings are void ab initio for non compliance of procedure contemplated under Section 90(1) of the Wakf Act. According to them, they have approached with a petition under sub-s. (3) of S.90 of the Wakf Act before the second respondent-Tahsildar, who is the Land Tribunal, to declare the order in O.A.No.771/1973 as null and void. The petition came to be rejected by the second respondent-Tribunal holding that the remedy open to them was to approach the Appellate Authority. The said order of the Tribunal came to be challenged in A.A.No.41/06 before the appellate authority. It is pertinent to mention that the order issuing purchase certificate never came to be challenged before the appellate authority, but it is only an order of rejection of the petition filed by the writ petitioner that came to be challenged before the appellate authority. It is pertinent to mention that the order issuing purchase certificate never came to be challenged before the appellate authority, but it is only an order of rejection of the petition filed by the writ petitioner that came to be challenged before the appellate authority. The appellate authority in its order dated 19.12.2007 dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay. Aggrieved by the same, challenging the said orders of the Tribunal and the appellate authority at Exhibits P2 and P5 respectively as perverse orders issued without following the procedure contemplated under the Statute, the present Writ Petitions came to be filed. The main contention before the learned Single Judge was also with regard to S.90(3) of the Wakf Act. 4. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both parties and considering the entire material placed on record, was of the opinion, there was no justification in the claim of the writ petitioner and accordingly dismissed the Writ Petitions at the admission stage itself on the ground of delay. Aggrieved by the said dismissal of the Writ Petitions, the present Writ Appeals are filed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants relies upon S.90 of the Wakf Act in order to substantiate their contentions raised in the Writ Appeals. According to the appellants, the petition filed before the Land Tribunal seeking declaration of the proceedings, where a purchase certificate came to be issued to late Aboobacker Haji as void was the court procedure as contemplated under sub-s.(3) of S.90 of the Wakf Act and there was no justification on the part of the authorities to reject the same. Sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 90 of the Wakf Act are relevant for the purpose of present case, which read as under: “90. Notice of suits etc., by courts.- (1) In every suit or proceeding relating to a title to or possession of a wakf property or the right of a mutawalli or beneficiary, the court or Tribunal shall issue notice to the Board at the cost of the party instituting such suit or proceeding. xxx xxx xxx (3) In the absence of a notice under sub-section (1), any decree or order passed in the suit or proceeding shall be declared void, if the Board, within one month of its coming to know of such suit or proceeding, applies to the court in this behalf.” 6. xxx xxx xxx (3) In the absence of a notice under sub-section (1), any decree or order passed in the suit or proceeding shall be declared void, if the Board, within one month of its coming to know of such suit or proceeding, applies to the court in this behalf.” 6. Similarly, Section 102 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act of 1963 is relevant, which reads as under: “102. Appeal to Appellate Authority.- (1) The Government or any person aggrieved by any order of the Land Tribunal under sub-section (2) of Section 12, sub-section (3) of Section 13A, Section 22, Section 23, sub-section (2) of Section 26 (where the amount of arrears of rent claimed exceeds five hundred rupees), Section 31, Section 47, sub-section (3) or sub- section (4) of Section 48, sub-section (3) of Section 49, sub-section (6) of Section 52, Section 57, sub-section (5) of Section 66, Section 72F, Section 73, sub-section (2) of Section 77, Section 80B, sub-section (4) of Section 90, Section 106 or Section 106A may appeal against such order within such time as may be prescribed to the appellate authority. (2) The appellate authority may admit an appeal presented after the expiration of the period prescribed under sub-section (1) if it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. (3) In deciding appeals under sub-section (1), the appellate authority shall exercise all the powers which a Court has and follow the same procedure which a Court follows in deciding appeals against the decree of an original Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (4) Where there has been any modification in appeal from any decision or order of the Land Tribunal, such decision or order shall be modified accordingly.” 7. The appellate authority constituted under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 is entitled to proceed with the appeal in the same procedural order which a Civil Court does as indicated in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as per the Land Reforms Act. This would automatically mean, all powers vested with the appellate court under the Code of Civil Procedure would apply to the appellate authority constituted under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. If any factual deficit exists or erroneous procedure is adopted by the Land Tribunal, the same could be rectified by the appellate authority. This would automatically mean, all powers vested with the appellate court under the Code of Civil Procedure would apply to the appellate authority constituted under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. If any factual deficit exists or erroneous procedure is adopted by the Land Tribunal, the same could be rectified by the appellate authority. Apparently, the first petition knocking at the doors of the Tribunal ought not to be filed before the Land Tribunal, as the appellate authority under the Act was the proper authority. Till date, no such initiation is taken up by the writ petitioner Wakf Board. This is clear from reading of sub-s.(3) of S.90 of the Wakf Act. Sub-s.(3) of S.102 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act read along with sub-s.(3) of S.90 of the Wakf Act indicates, the powers vested with the appellate authority under the Kerala Land Reforms Act have to be exercised by the appellate authority as contemplated under S.102 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Apparently, in the present case, the petitioners, instead of seeking such relief before the appellate authority, approached the Land Tribunal and the appellant is unable to substantiate their stand by indicating any provision of law where such power is vested with the Land Tribunal to review its order. 8. Then coming to the facts of the present case or the contentions raised by the appellant, it is not in dispute that a Mosque is situated by the side of the property in question way back in 1924 itself. If a property is dedicated to a particular Mosque, definitely, the authorities, who were in charge of running the day-to-day affairs of the Mosque, must have brought this fact to the notice of the Wakf Board situated at the State Head Quarters. It is not the case of the appellant that declaration of 1924 dedicating the property to Mosque was never brought to their notice. On the other hand, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant submits, they were aware that the local Committee was managing the day-to-day affairs of the Mosque and the properties attached to it. That being the situation, they were very well aware of dedication of the property to Mosque way back in 1924 and now they can only agitate that they were not aware of the purchase certificate proceedings declaring rights of the tenants in the said proceedings before the Land Tribunal. That being the situation, they were very well aware of dedication of the property to Mosque way back in 1924 and now they can only agitate that they were not aware of the purchase certificate proceedings declaring rights of the tenants in the said proceedings before the Land Tribunal. 9. To accept the contention that they came to know only in the year 2005 about the proceedings alleging that the said proceedings were taken behind back of the Board the material placed before the learned Single Judge is not only insufficient so far as the appellant is concerned, but the material brought on record by the tenants clearly indicates accepting the authority of the tenants in whose favour purchase certificate was granted by the Land Tribunal, certain documents came into existence in the year 1974 itself. The same is evidenced under Exhibit R3(b) way back in 1974, which is referred to in W.A.No.1391 of 2009. 10. It is not in dispute that the property, where Mosque is situated, is not the subject matter of property before the Land Tribunal. The property adjacent to the Mosque in question came to be dedicated by Aboobacker Haji under Exhibit R3(b), wherein they had clearly indicated the brief history how the property had come to the possession of Aboobacker Haji. The contents of this document clearly establish the fact that as early as on 27.2.1974 under document No.312/1974 before the Sub Registrar concerned, a declaration came to be made by Aboobacker Haji that he was dedicating the scheduled property in favour of Vattapoyil Jumaeth Palli and he had secured rights over this property under a deed of partition dated 30.1.1968 so far as his family is concerned and he had obtained a purchase certificate in O.A. proceedings pertaining to 1971. This declaration and acceptance of dedication of this property in favour of the Mosque is by Mutawalli representing the Wakf Board is nothing, but a knowledge of factual situation how the properties came to be assigned in favour of Aboobacker Haji to Mutawalli concerned. If he is the authorised representative of the Wakf Board, it has to be held as within the knowledge of the Wakf Board as well. 11. If he is the authorised representative of the Wakf Board, it has to be held as within the knowledge of the Wakf Board as well. 11. Then the question of S.90 of the Wakf Act comes into play to know whether there is justification in the claim of the appellant that within one month from the date of knowledge of the proceedings before the Land Tribunal they had approached the authorities concerned claiming that the proceedings initiated pertaining to purchase certificate were void ab initio. 12. As rightly pointed out by the learned Single Judge, there is no clear date being mentioned in the Writ Petitions on what date exactly the so-called knowledge of the proceedings came to the notice of the Wakf Board. It is obviously absent and this persuades us to opine that way back in 1974 if not earlier, the Wakf Board was aware of the proceedings and the purchase certificate issued in favour of Aboobacker Haji. If that was not within their knowledge, the question of accepting dedication of a portion of the very same property dedicated to them in 1974 would not have arisen. As the right, title and interest over the property to the knowledge of the Wakf Board were passed on to the tenants by virtue of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, they accepted this second dedication, a portion of the property as indicated at Exhibit R3(b) document. Having accepted this, the attitude or the action of the appellant again turning back and challenging the proceedings somewhere in 2005 is beyond the period of limitation as contemplated under S.90 of the Wakf Act. Viewed from any angle, the opinion expressed by the learned Single Judge cannot be found fault with and accordingly, the Writ Appeals are dismissed.