ORDER : 1. CRP (Wakf) No.333 of 2016 is preferred by the 1 st defendant in O.S.No.15 of 2012 and CRP(Wakf) No.186 of 2017 is preferred by the Kerala State Wakf Board, 2 nd defendant against the common judgment in the Suit. 2. Succinctly the facts of the present case are enumerated herein below: One Seethimarakkarakath Alikoya was the owner of the plaint schedule property. In the year 1921, vide document No.770 registered at Kozhikode, Pathummai Umma and others executed a Karaima kachit in favour of Ali Koya with respect to a property having an extent of 12x10 kole. After obtaining the permission from the respective Municipality as per the order No.1591/1925, the aforementioned people had set up a house therein. In the year 1928, Pathummai Umma and others assigned their leasehold right over the property to Kappuveettil Kuttirayin by document No.510/1928. Thereafter, Kuttirayin executed a fresh lease deed in favour of Alikoya taking more property, as per document No.528/1928. However, in 1928, the area in the lease deed was shown more than 12x10 asarikole, i.e., as 16x14 Asarikole. Thereafter, Kuttirayin executed two mortgage deeds of the property in 1928 and 1939 and assigned leasehold rights to Aadiyeri Kanoth Madhavi in 1941. Subsequent to the death of Madhavi, her right devolved upon her seven children namely, Leela, Balakrishnan, Kunhiraman, Sreenivasan, Lalitha, Girija and Samidasan. All these seven persons assigned their leasehold right over the property to O.M.Subrahmania Chettiyar, S/o.Oggu Narasimha Chettiyar in the year 1948 as per document No.1057 of 1948 and thereafter, the release deed was renewed in 1951. Subrahmania Chettiyar continued to enjoy the possession of the property as a cultivating tenant. The Land Reforms Act, 1970 came into being and as per the provisions of the Act, gave certain right to the long and settled tenants who are entitled by making requisite applications. Accordingly an application was submitted to the concerned authority and Subrahmania Chettiyar successfully obtained the certificate of purchase as per O.A.No.2096 of 1971 from Land Tribunal, Kozhikode. In the aforementioned proceedings, the Manager of Jenmi namely Siyali Veettil Imbichayishabi was impleaded i.e, the landlord and obtained a purchase certificate dated 08.04.1974 having an extent of 14½ cents of land. Out of the aforementioned property, certain portion of the property was required for widening of the road. In the aforementioned proceedings, the Manager of Jenmi namely Siyali Veettil Imbichayishabi was impleaded i.e, the landlord and obtained a purchase certificate dated 08.04.1974 having an extent of 14½ cents of land. Out of the aforementioned property, certain portion of the property was required for widening of the road. Later on, the house was dismantled in the remaining property having an extent of 9¼ cents of land and permission was applied for the construction of a new house, which was granted by the Kozhikode Corporation vide order dated 28.08.2003. The undivided ¼ share of the aforementioned property was sold to the respondent ie, Nedumpurath Pokker Haji and his son Ashraf as per document No.695/2003 of SRO Kozhikode, who later assigned their right over the property to the plaintiffs as per the assignment deed No.853/2004. Thereafter, Varikkodan Chekku Haji purchased the above property vide document No.183 of 2004. Remaining 2/4 right of the property was also executed in favour of the plaintiffs vide document No.575 of 2004. Thus, the plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of the property having an extent of 9¼ cents of land which was left out after some portion was acquired for the purpose of widening the road. 3. The defendants did not deny the execution of the release deed in 1921, but alleged that Seethi Alikoya had dedicated the property bearing 14½ cents of land to the Wakf including the property in dispute by virtue of Wakf deed No.661/1993 dated 24.06.1933. Since there was no registration of the aforementioned land, it was done only in 1983 vide registration No.6139/RA. Treating the possession of the plaintiff required the ownership from the erstwhile owner by way of purchase certificate who acquired the title on the basis of release deeds referred to above. Respondents/defendants submitted a request under Section 54 of the Wakf Act to the Wakf Board for initiating the proceedings of eviction branding the plaintiffs as unauthorised occupants on account of the alleged determination of the release deed. 4. The Chief Executive Officer of the Wakf Board as per the provisions of the Act, is the authorised person to initiate the aforementioned proceedings. Accordingly, the plaintiffs received a notice from the Wakf Board of the enquiry and for the first time, acquired knowledge that the erstwhile owner namely Seethimarakkarakath had executed a Wakf Deed in 1933. 4. The Chief Executive Officer of the Wakf Board as per the provisions of the Act, is the authorised person to initiate the aforementioned proceedings. Accordingly, the plaintiffs received a notice from the Wakf Board of the enquiry and for the first time, acquired knowledge that the erstwhile owner namely Seethimarakkarakath had executed a Wakf Deed in 1933. In those proceedings, all the aforementioned facts of release deeds, purchase certificates were asserted, but of no avail resulting into an eviction order dated 27.12.2010. 5. Against the aforementioned order, the plaintiffs filed a civil suit bearing number O.S.No.15 of 2012, seeking declaration as owner of the property owing to the facts narrated above. The defence, which was taken up by the defendants in the proceedings under Section 54, was taken up in the suit also ie, regarding the execution of the lease deed after execution of wakf deed; non impleadment of the wakif or the beneficiaries of the Wakf in respect of proceeding before the Land Tribunal and the factum of registration of the Wakf in 1983 with the Wakf Board. 6. Learned Tribunal, while noticing the provisions of the Act and as well as the evidence brought on record, granted declaration in favor of the respondents/plaintiffs, on merits and set aside the proceedings of the CEO to be as barred by law of limitation under the erstwhile Wakf Act of 1954. 7. Smt.Gauri and Mr.Jamshed Hafiz, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in both the aforementioned cases submitted that, the lease deed of 1951 (Ext.A8) has not been proved on record, for, by that time, the status of the property was no longer to be of a lease, owing to the execution of the Wakf deed in 1933. Limitation would not arise on account of the fact that the status of the tenants continued to be of a trespasser, even if the possession had exchanged hands from time to time, by virtue of lease deed of 1951 and subsequently, in 2003 and 2004, as per document Nos.695 of 2003 and 183 of 2004. The tenants could not execute subsequent lease deeds, much less pass over the title. Even the purchase certificate of 1976 was bad in law, as, the Wakf Board was not made a party. 8. The tenants could not execute subsequent lease deeds, much less pass over the title. Even the purchase certificate of 1976 was bad in law, as, the Wakf Board was not made a party. 8. On the other hand, Mr.Harish Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/plaintiffs, submitted that the Wakf deed had not seen the light of the day as it was never put to the notice of the lessees at any point of time, and the property was kept on exchanging from hands to hands, as, the wakif did not have the conscious and physical possession of the property by virtue of 1951 document and subsequent document Nos.695 of 2003 and 183 of 2004 and no effort was made to take possession. The proceedings exercised under Section 54 of 1995 Act were barred by law of limitation as more than 12 years had passed when the application, for the first time, was submitted to the CEO for initiating proceedings. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book. 10. The facts noticed above regarding the execution of the documents: lease deed from 1921, onwards, on account of the order of the CEO dated 07.12.2010, the plaintiffs had no choice but to seek declaration by challenging the order of the suit. Both the parties to the lis filed entire pleadings and they also brought on record the following documentary evidence and examined themselves in the following manner: Plaintiffs Witness: PW1 03.08.2015 Chekku Haji Plaintiffs Exhibits: Al 30.01.1921 Copy of lease. (Karayma) deed No.770/1921 A2 05.06.1928 Copy of assignment deed No.510/1928 A3 04.06.1928 Copy of lease (Karayma) deed No.528/1928 A4 25.08.1928 Copy of mortgage deed No.785/1928 A5 19.04.1939 Copy of mortgage deed No. 406/1939 A6 13.02.1941 Copy of lease (Karayma) Theeradharam No. 139/1941 A7 22.06.1948 Copy of lease (Karayma) Theeradharam No. 1057/1948 A8 15.03.1951 Copy of lease deed (Verumbattom Kacheet) No.317/1951. (Karayma) deed No.770/1921 A2 05.06.1928 Copy of assignment deed No.510/1928 A3 04.06.1928 Copy of lease (Karayma) deed No.528/1928 A4 25.08.1928 Copy of mortgage deed No.785/1928 A5 19.04.1939 Copy of mortgage deed No. 406/1939 A6 13.02.1941 Copy of lease (Karayma) Theeradharam No. 139/1941 A7 22.06.1948 Copy of lease (Karayma) Theeradharam No. 1057/1948 A8 15.03.1951 Copy of lease deed (Verumbattom Kacheet) No.317/1951. A9 22.07.1970 Copy of application to Land Tribunal, Kozhikode No.II in OA 2096/71 A23 17.07.1966 Pattam receipt A24 3.11.1976 Land tax receipt from Kasaba Village A25 22.02.1995 Land tax receipt from Kasaba Village A26 12.03.1996 Land tax receipt from Kasaba Village A27 04.03.1998 A28 30.03.2000 Land tax receipt from Kasaba Village A29 27.03.2001 Land tax receipt from Kasaba Village A30 29.10.2001 Land tax receipt from Kasaba Village A31 21.01.2003 Land tax receipt from Kasaba Village A32 08.05.2003 Land tax receipt from Kasaba Village A33 15.03.2006 Land tax receipt from Kasaba Village A34 15.03.2006 Land tax receipt from Kasaba Village A35 15.03.2006 Land tax receipt from Kasaba Village A36 14.07.2006 Land tax receipt from Kasaba Village A37 20.12.2008 Land tax receipt from Kasaba Village A38 22.09.2001 Building Tax receipt A39 20.03.2002 Building Tax receipt A40 23.09.2002 Building Tax receipt A41 07.02.2003 Building Tax receipt A42 31.08.2004 Building Tax receipt A43 26.02.2007 Building Tax receipt A45 22.02.2008 Building Tax receipt A46 30.03.2007 Building Tax receipt A47 05.07.2007 Building Tax receipt A48 - Building Tax receipt No.8430401 A49 04.07.2006 Tax Assessment Notice A50 23.06.2004 Bill from Kerals Water Authority A51 12.07.2004 Receipt from Kerala Water Authority A52 13.09.2004 Receipt from KeralaWater Authority A53 7.06.2003 Possession certificate A54 11.01.2012 Certified copy of Order in F2-7073/08-03 A55 30.07.1976 Encumbrance Certificate A56 28.01.2002 Encumbrance Certificate A57 24.02.1982 Land Tax Receipt A58 09.03.1982 Building Tax Receipt A59(Series) 25.04.2006 Proceedings of Town Planning Officer (3Nos.) A60 11.10.2006 Receipt of building licence fee Defendants Witness: DW1 26.08.2015 P.K. Sudheer Defendants Exhibits B1 Certified copy of Wakf Register Extract in 1983 B2 27.12.2010 Certified copy of Order in Kerala Wakf Board B3 9.12.2010 Certified copy of Order in 12- 7073/08-04 B4. 13.06.2011 Certified copy of Order in 12- 7073/08-02 B5 23.7.2012 Certified copy of Town survey statement Register B6 17 06.1931 Copy of Registration of Wakf deed No.1408/31 B7 26.06.1933 Copy of Registration of Wakf deed No 661/1933 B8 02.03.1983 Copy of Land Acquisition Register B9 26.02.2012 Paper publication in Chandrika Daily B10 22.02.2012 Paper publication in Madhyamam daily B11(series) Carbon Copy of Rent Receipt (11 Nos) B12 (Series) Building Tax Receipts (16 Nos) B13(Series) Building Tax Receipts (18 Nos) B14(Series) Tax Receipts (9 Nos) B15 27.12.2010 Copy of Order in E3-7073/08-1 B16 30.04.2010 Original of Vadaka Ozhimuri deed B17 Rent Kachit B18(series) Licence agreement (3Nos) (Original) B19 30.01.1921 Copy of Karyama Kacheet (Lease deeds) B20 06.06.1928 Copy of Karyama Kacheet (Lease deeds) B21(series) Copy of Karyama Kacheet (Lease deeds) (3 Nos) B22 18.11.1920 Copy of Karyama Kacheet (Lease deeds) (3 Nos) B23 23.11.1920 Copy of Ozhimuri deed B24 16.02.1981 Certified copy of statement in LAR 241/79 B25 06.07.1977 Certified copy of award of Special Thahsildar, Kozhikode B26(series) 09.06.1981 Certified Copy of decree reference in LAR 241/79 (2Nos) B27 Certified copy of reference card during 18.02.1980 to 09.06.1981 B28 28.02.1983 Certified copy of Award of Special Thahasildar (LA) Calicut Development Authority B29 06.07.1977 Certified Copy of Reference No.C2458/77 of Special Thahsildar (LA), Calicut Development Authority B30(series) Building Tax receipt (3 Nos) B31(series) Receipts of Donation (19 Nos) B32 26.06.2014 Certified copy of resettlement Adangal extract B33(series) Carbon copy of rent receipts (46Nos.) B34 Tax Pass Book B35(series) Building Tax receipts (37 Nos) B36 Encumbrance Certificate B37 22.09.1920 Jenanam assignment deed No.3095/1920 B38(series) Copy of Certificates (4 nos) B39 28.08.1933 Certified copy of Gazetted notice of Malayam District B40 19.06.1931 Copy of Registration receipt B41 25.08.1930 Copy of assignment deed B42 16.11.1981 Certified copy of Nalvazhi register of Kasaba Village office, Kozhikode Third party Exhibits: X1 16.11.1981 Verumpattom Kachit from Sub Register Office, Kozhikode 11. The question now posted before us is as to whether the proceedings of eviction under Section 54 of 1995 Act can be proceeded with or not. Section 54 of the Act reads as under: 54. The question now posted before us is as to whether the proceedings of eviction under Section 54 of 1995 Act can be proceeded with or not. Section 54 of the Act reads as under: 54. Removal of encroachment from waqf property.— (1) Whenever the Chief Executive Officer considers whether on receiving any complaint or on his own motion that there has been an encroachment on any land, building, space or other property which is waqf property and, which has been registered as such under this Act, he shall cause to be served upon the encroacher a notice specifying the particulars of the encroachment and calling upon him to show cause before a date to be specified in such notice, as to why an order requiring him to remove the encroachment before the date so specified should not be made and shall also send a copy of such notice to the concerned mutawalli. (2) The notice referred to in sub-section (1) shall be served in such manner as may be prescribed. (3) If, after considering the objections, received during the period specified in the notice, and after conducting an inquiry in such manner as may be prescribed, the Chief Executive Officer is satisfied that the property in question is waqf property and that there has been an encroachment on any such waqf property, he may, make an application to the Tribunal for grant of order of eviction for removing such encroachment and deliver possession of the land, building, space or other property encroached upon to the mutawalli of the waqf. (4) The Tribunal, upon receipt of such application from the Chief Executive Officer, for reasons to be recorded therein, make an order of eviction directing that the waqf property shall be vacated by all persons who may be in occupation thereof or any part thereof, and cause a copy of the order to be affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the waqf property: Provided that the Tribunal may before making an order of eviction, give an opportunity of being heard to the person against whom the application for eviction has been made by the Chief Executive Officer. (5) If any person refuses or fails to comply with the order of eviction within forty-five days from the date of affixture of the order under sub-section (2), the Chief Executive Officer or any other person duly authorised by him in this behalf may evict that person from, and take possession of, the waqf property. 12. On perusal of the same, it is evident that on determination of tenancy, any, Jama-Ath or a Wakif , seeking to terminate the tenancy, required to move an application to the Chief Executive Officer of concerned Wakf Board to initiate action and the Chief Executive Officer thereupon, shall call upon the tenants and the tenants shall submit a reply. It is pertinent to mention here, before submitting a request to CEO, it is a requirement of law that lesser or the Jamaath or a private Wakf is required to determine the tenancy by sending a notice in writing, as provided under Sections 54(1) and 54(2) of the Act. The possession of the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs in respect of 14½ cents of land and subsequently reduced to 9¼ of land, on account of acquisition of the parcels of land for the purpose of widening of the road, since 1999, is not in dispute. 13. Pathumma Umma, the original lessee assigned the leasehold right over the property to Kappuveettil Kuttirayin, as per document No.510/1928. Till such time there was no dispute. Thereafter the property changed hands in 1951 and then in 2003-2004. However, the execution of the Wakf deed of 1933 did not come to light and in the notice of the original lessees and subsequent lessees, as, it was not a registered document, much less, was never put to notice by the Wakif considering it to be a Wakf by oulad, pointing out that the status of a tenant or of a lessee no longer subsists owing to a dedication. The dedication cannot be done in the manner and mode as has been followed in this case, until, unless, the property in question is being used for certain purposes, like for offering prayers, old dome or a mosque or some madrasa. None of the aforementioned ingredients had been in existence as the nature of the land had earlier been a house, and thereafter it was demolished. Permission was granted and now as per the facts, are being used for commercial purposes. None of the aforementioned ingredients had been in existence as the nature of the land had earlier been a house, and thereafter it was demolished. Permission was granted and now as per the facts, are being used for commercial purposes. In other words, the alleged document had never been in the conscious possession and enjoyment of the Wakf. The registration done in 1983, that too with the Wakf Board, will not make the wakf deed to be an actual document, as, the executor or his legal representatives, much less the witnesses to the wakf deed or any other person in whose presence it was done, have not been examined to prove the document. There could have been, some force, had the aforementioned wakf deed registered with the registrar of authorities by producing the record. On the other hand, the rights of the lessee converted into an ownership by way of a purchase certificate of 1976 in the proceedings conducted before the Tribunal in OA No.2096 of 1971, wherein only the legal heirs of the alleged document were arrayed as a respondent. Even in those proceedings also, the legal heirs did not bring it to the notice of the Land Tribunal regarding the execution of the wakf deed and the change of the nature of the land, for achieving the purpose of law. It is also a matter of record that the order of the Land Tribunal is assailable before the competent authority as well as revisable before the Government. But no such steps were taken and the certificate continues to be in force till date. 14. Any person buying a land would always be diligent to make a reasonable enquiry regarding the title, as well as the possession. The respondents/plaintiffs, by virtue of all documents and purchase certificate and document No.694 of 2003, purchased the property at first 1/4 th share, and the remaining another 2/4th share, making it as a 9¼ cents of land. If at all there was some actual grievance at the behest of the legal representative of the original owners, remedy under Section 54 was not maintainable, but lied elsewhere, as any registered document is required to be challenged in the competent court of law that i.e., the Tribunal under the Wakf Act. If at all there was some actual grievance at the behest of the legal representative of the original owners, remedy under Section 54 was not maintainable, but lied elsewhere, as any registered document is required to be challenged in the competent court of law that i.e., the Tribunal under the Wakf Act. No doubt, there is no limitation to seek eviction against the unauthorized occupant under the provisions of 1995 Act, but in the erstwhile 1954 Act, limitation of 12 years was prescribed, which was later amended to 30 years. But no steps have been taken to seek the possession, either time i.e., while the limitation of 12 year or 30 year was in vogue. The proceedings were initiated in 2008, by that time even the period of 30 years had also lapsed. The findings of fact and law arrived at by the learned Tribunal in view of Wakf Act,as noticed above do not require any different interpretation than the one arrived at or do not suffer from any illegality or perversity. In this view of the matters, CRPs are dismissed.