A Waqf Board must consider a Mujawarship claim despite its mistaken reference to Mutawalli.

The petitioners claimed to be the legal heirs of Kappagal Nabisab, stated to have been a Mujawar of Panje Masjid (Sunni), Kappagal. They claimed hereditary entitlement to the office of Mujawar and to cultivate Waqf land in Survey No. 359, measuring 12 acres 57 cents.

In an earlier writ petition, the High Court had reserved liberty to approach the Waqf Board to decide the dispute concerning the office of Mujawar or Mutawalli.

The Board declined to consider the petitioners’ initial representations because they sought appointment as Mutawalli rather than Mujawar; the petitioners said this was a typographical error and made a further representation seeking appointment as Mujawars.

The petitioners challenged the Board’s endorsement dated 9 September 2025 and sought recognition of their status and cultivation rights. The Board stated that an Administrator and caretaker had since been appointed and undertook to enquire into the later representation.

1. Whether the Board was justified in declining to consider the petitioners’ representations because they referred to the office of Mutawalli rather than Mujawar.

2. Whether the High Court should recognize the petitioners’ claimed hereditary Mujawarship or protect their cultivation of the Waqf land pending the Board’s decision.

The Court identified no specific statutory provision or precedent as the basis for its decision. It proceeded on the principle that the claim or dispute concerning the office of Mujawar or Mutawalli was to be decided by the State Waqf Board, consistent with the earlier order referred to in the judgment.

The Court treated the petitioners’ claim of hereditary succession as a matter requiring enquiry and adjudication by the Board, with the petitioners entitled to present admissible documentary and oral evidence.

The Board rejected the earlier representations solely because they referred to appointment as Mutawalli, although the petitioners’ claim before the Court was to hereditary Mujawarship. The Court considered the reference to Mutawalli an apparent typographical error and held that it should not prevent consideration of the claim.

However, the Court did not determine whether the petitioners were Mujawars or entitled to cultivate the land. Because an Administrator had been appointed and had taken charge, and that arrangement had not been challenged, the Court declined to interfere with it.

The petitioners may submit admissible documentary and oral evidence.

The Court declined to disturb the Administrator’s arrangement; it stated that, if the petitioners are found to be Mujawars, their rights and entitlements will follow in accordance with law. The petition was disposed of accordingly.