JUDGMENT : Easwaran S., J. Plaintiffs in O.S.No.1 of 2010 on the file of the Wakf Tribunal, Kollam are the petitioners before this Court in Civil Revision Petition. 2. Facts in brief for disposal of the present Revision Petition are as follows: Petitioners are the members and beneficiaries of the first defendant Edava Muslim Jama-ath, a Wakf registered with the Wakf Board. Defendant Nos.2 to 4, the office bearers of the Managing Committee of the Wakf, being also the Muthawalli of the Wakf, colluded with defendant Nos.5 to 12, who are the local politicians, and permitted an alleged Edava Road Vikasana Samithi to encroach upon a considerable portion of the Wakf property and unauthorisedly utilized portions of the Masjid, Khabersthan, lands and other structures for alleged purposes of widening of the Edava– Kappil Road passing through the eastern side of the Wakf property. The suit was instituted under Section 94(2) of the Wakf Act read with Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The defendant Nos.1 to 4 filed a joint written statement contending among others that it is the Wakf Board who is vested with the powers of removal of encroachment and suit filed by the plaintiffs under Section 94 (2) of the Wakf Act is not maintainable. Defendant Nos.5 to 12 also appeared and filed a joint written statement stating that the suit filed before the Wakf Tribunal is not maintainable. On behalf of the plaintiff, Exts.A1 to A13 were marked and PW1 to PW3 were examined. Exts.C1 to C4 were marked as court exhibits. On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: “1. Whether the suit is maintainable? 2. Whether the court fee paid on the plaint is proper? 3. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties and non-joinder of necessary parties? 4. Whether the mandatory injunction sought for in the plaint is allowable ? 5. Whether the permanent prohibitory injunction sought for in the plaint is allowable? 6. Whether the prayer for recovery compensation of Rs.3,42,000/-from the defendants sought for in the plaint is allowable ? 7. Reliefs and costs.” 3. After considering the rival pleadings, the Tribunal came to conclusion that the suit filed by the plaintiffs invoking Section 94(2) of the Wakf Act was not maintainable and accordingly dismissed the suit giving liberty to the applicants – plaintiffs to move before the Wakf Board. 7. Reliefs and costs.” 3. After considering the rival pleadings, the Tribunal came to conclusion that the suit filed by the plaintiffs invoking Section 94(2) of the Wakf Act was not maintainable and accordingly dismissed the suit giving liberty to the applicants – plaintiffs to move before the Wakf Board. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiffs have filed the present Revision Petition. 4. We have heard Sri.P.B.Subramanyan, learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioners and Sri.Jamsheed Hafiz, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.13. 5. As per the office report dated 04.09.2024, the service on the respondents is complete, however, there is no appearance for the respondents today when the matter was taken up for consideration by this Court. Sri.P.B.Subramanyan, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners submitted that the Tribunal erred egregiously in dismissing the suit as not on maintainable before the Tribunal. Learned counsel submitted that the power of the Wakf Board to remove the encroachments is contained under Section 54 of the Wakf Act. On receipt of a complaint regarding the encroachment of the Wakf property, it is incumbent upon the Chief Executive Officer to cause an enquiry into such complaint and thereafter pass suitable orders in this regard. Section 54(4) was subsequently amended by the Parliament with effect from 01.11.2013 entitling the Chief Executive Officer to move before the Tribunal and the Tribunal upon receipt of such application, shall pass an order directing that the encroachment from the Wakf property to be removed. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Chief Executive Officer, after the 2013 amendment, is no longer vested with the powers to remove the encroachment and he can only move before the Tribunal for suitable orders. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the Managing Committee of the Jama-ath did not take any action on the complaint raised by the petitioners and moved before the Wakf Board for suitable action for eviction of the encroachers. In such circumstances, according to the learned counsel, the Tribunal is certainly empowered to look into the dispute in respect of the Wakf property in terms of Section 83(1) of the 1995 Act. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Board of Wakf Vs. Anis Fatma Begum [ 2010 (4) KLT 765 (SC)]. In such circumstances, according to the learned counsel, the Tribunal is certainly empowered to look into the dispute in respect of the Wakf property in terms of Section 83(1) of the 1995 Act. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Board of Wakf Vs. Anis Fatma Begum [ 2010 (4) KLT 765 (SC)]. The learned counsel for the petitioners further placed reliance on the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Nambidi Prakasan Vs. Daruthaqva Islamic Cultural Centre [ 2022 (4) KLT 1 (FB)]. 6. We are also heard Sri.Jamsheed Hafiz, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.13 and contended that the power of the Tribunal cannot be denuded. If the members of the Jama-ath did not take any appropriate action, it is always open for the Tribunal to exercise its powers under Section 83 that is precisely why the provisions of Section 94(4) has been incorporated in the statute. 7. We have considered the rival submissions raised across the Bar and perused the order passed by the Tribunal. 8. Section 94(2) of the Wakf Act, 1995 reads as under: “Where a mutawalli is under an obligation to discharge any other duties imposed on him under the waqf and the mutawalli wilfully fails to discharge such duties, the Board or any person interested in the waqf may make an application to the Tribunal and the Tribunal may pass such order thereon as it thinks fit.” 9. In the present case, it is the specific allegation of the petitioners that the muthawalli of the Jama-ath had failed to exercise the duty vested on him and failed to take appropriate action for eviction of the encroachers. That be so, the question would be as to whether the aggrieved persons should move before the Board or before the Tribunal, as the case may be. No doubt, Section 54 mandates that whenever the Chief Executive Officer considers a complaint or on its own motion or otherwise, complaining that there has been an encroachment on the Wakf land, he has to conduct enquiry and after hearing the parties, he has to find whether the encroachment alleged is proved or not, and thereafter pass orders of eviction. No doubt, Section 54 mandates that whenever the Chief Executive Officer considers a complaint or on its own motion or otherwise, complaining that there has been an encroachment on the Wakf land, he has to conduct enquiry and after hearing the parties, he has to find whether the encroachment alleged is proved or not, and thereafter pass orders of eviction. Before the amendment Act of 2013, the provision of Section 54(4) provided that as soon as the Chief Executive Officer passes an order made under Section 54, such person can institute a suit before the Tribunal to establish that he has the right as well as interest over the land, building or space or other properties of the Wakf. In short, it is open for him to establish that he is not an encroacher and holds the property under a valid grant. A combined reading of Section 54 read with Section 94(2) of the Wakf Act, 1995 would certainly lead to an irresistible conclusion that in the failure of the muthawalli of the Jama-ath in moving an appropriate application under Section 54, a person can institute a suit complaining that the muthawalli has failed to discharge his duties. On such a suit being instituted, it is always open for the Tribunal to direct the Wakf Board to cause an enquiry and report before the Tribunal for appropriate decision. 10. In this context, it is pertinent to note that the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Anis Fatma Begum (supra), the Supreme Court considering the nature of the power of the Tribunal under Section 83(1) has held that the Tribunal can decide all disputed questions of other matters relating to the Wakf property. Pertinently, the Honourable Supreme Court said that a party can approach the Wakf Tribunal even if no order has been passed under the Act against which he or she is aggrieved. It is apposite to extract paragraph No.16 of the aforementioned judgment: “16. We may further clarify that the party can approach the Wakf Tribunal, even if no order has been passed under the Act, against which he/she is aggrieved. It may be mentioned that Section 83(1) and 84 of the Act do not confine the jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal to the determination of the correctness or otherwise of an order passed under the Act. It may be mentioned that Section 83(1) and 84 of the Act do not confine the jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal to the determination of the correctness or otherwise of an order passed under the Act. No doubt Section 83(2) refers to the orders passed under the Act, but, in our opinion, Sections 83(1) and 84 of the Act are independent provisions, and they do not require an order to be passed under the Act before invoking the jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal. Hence, it cannot be said that a party can approach the Wakf Tribunal only against an order passed under the Act. In our opinion, even if no order has been passed under the Act, the party can approach the Wakf Tribunal for the determination of any dispute, question or other matters relating to a Wakf or Wakf property, as the plain language of Section 83(1) and 84 indicates.” 11. A reading of paragraph No.16 of the judgment in Anis Fatma Begum (supra) leaves no room for doubt that the order passed by the Tribunal dismissing the suit is perseunsustainable. In our considered view, the Tribunal erred egregiously in ignoring the settled law as laid down by the Supreme Court in Anis Fatma Begum (supra). Coming to the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Nambidi Prakasan (supra), the Full Bench was called upon to decide the question as to whether the Chief Executive Officer of the Wakf Board has got the authority to order eviction of the encroachers of the property and also to consider the impact of the amendment introduced by Act 27 of 2013 with effect from 01.11.2013 after analyse of the unamended provision of Section 54(4) with that of the amended provision with effect from 01.11.2013. It was held by the said Full Bench that the exercise of the power of the Tribunal to order eviction of Wakf property in occupation of the tenant would arise only on motion of the Chief Executive Officer of the Board, who is to first satisfy himself that the person liable for eviction from the tenanted premises, is an encroacher. However, we are not concerned about the said portion of the finding rendered by the Full Bench. However, we are not concerned about the said portion of the finding rendered by the Full Bench. More pertinently, the Full Bench also found that existence of an alternate mode of legal proceedings prescribed by the Act and the Rules, is not a bar to a mutawalli of a Wakf bringing a suit for eviction and arrears of rent by himself before the Tribunal. 12. When the principles laid down by the Full Bench is closely scrutinized, it becomes clear that the principles laid down by the Full Bench are perfectly in tune with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Anis Fatma Begum(supra). If a mutawalli has got an alternate mode to enforce the right to recover arrears of rent or to cause eviction of encroachers, it is equally possible to hold that a person who is aggrieved by the inaction of the mutawalli to take appropriate action could maintain an independent suit before the Tribunal. It is in this context, we have to analyse the power given to the Tribunal under Section 94(2). No doubt, the view which we are taking would not have been possible had the provisions contained under Section 94(2) not been in the Wakf Act, 1995. However, that is not the case. By enacting Section 94(2), the Parliament was quite conscious and envisaged the situation where the mutawalli failed to take action in appropriate time and thus not taking any step to protect the interest of the Wakf property. It is under these circumstances that the power was conferred upon the Tribunal under Section 94(2) of the Act to entertain suit from the interested person. We are fortified in our views in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Rashid Wali Beg Vs Farid Pindari [ 2021 (6) KLT 482 (SC)]. 13. In the totality of the facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal clearly erred in not entertaining the suit and proceeding the case on merits, but dismissing the same solely on the ground that the plaintiffs/revision petitioners could move an appropriate application before the Board under Section 54 of the Act. Viewed in the above perspective, we cannot subscribe to the findings of the Tribunal. In the result, the petitioners are entitled to succeed. The revision petition is thus allowed. The order dated 18.08.2011 dismissing the suit is set aside. Viewed in the above perspective, we cannot subscribe to the findings of the Tribunal. In the result, the petitioners are entitled to succeed. The revision petition is thus allowed. The order dated 18.08.2011 dismissing the suit is set aside. O.S.No.1 of 2010 is restored to the file of Wakf Tribunal, Kollam. It is declared that the suit is maintainable before the Wakf Tribunal and accordingly, the Wakf Tribunal, Kollam is directed to retain back O.S.No.1 of 2010 to file and proceed in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 30.09.2024.