Madras High Court
Babu Khan Mohammed Sha Pannadi Bee ... vs The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board on 6 August, 2025
Author: C.Saravanan
Bench: C.Saravanan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 06.08.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.P.(MD)No.21214 of 2025
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.16376 & 16377 of 2025
Babu Khan Mohammed Sha Pannadi Bee Dargha,
Rep. by its Hereditary Mutawalli,
Janab K.S.Abdul Salam, ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board,
Rep. through its Chief Executive Officer,
No.1, Jaffer Syrang Street,
Vallal Seethakathi Nagar, Chennai.
2.The Superintendent of Wakf,
Tiruchirappalli.
3.The Inspector of Wakf,
Tiruchirappalli. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the 1st respondent in
impugned Gazette notification dated 11.07.2025, in respect of the order in
No.VI-3(a)/53/2025, and quash the same.
1/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:20:36 pm )
For Petitioner : Mr.H.Arumugam
For Respondents : Mr.D.S.Haroon Rasheed
Standing Counsel
*****
ORDER
This is the third round of litigation before this Court. Earlier, the petitioner had filed W.P(MD)No.5717 of 2023. In the said writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette No.7, dated 15.02.2023, and the consequential impugned order passed by the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board, the respondent herein in proceedings bearing reference Na.Ka.No. 9480/22/Aa5/Tiruchy, dated 24.02.2023, and the order of the third respondent herein, dated 10.03.2025, in his proceedings bearing reference No.Na.Ka.G.S. 748/Ni A.Va Aa/Tiruchy/2023.
2.The above said prayer was modified as per the order dated 20.07.2023, made in W.M.P(MD)No.11624 of 2023 in W.P(MD)No.5717 of 2023.
3.This Court had disposed of the above Writ Petition by setting aside the steps taken for removing the petitioner under Section 64 of the Waqf Act and under Section 65 of the Waqf Act direct Management, with the following observations:-
2/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:20:36 pm ) “7.Moreover, under Section 64 of waqf Act, Mutawalli can be changed and under Section 65 of the waqf Act direct management can be ordered. But the respondents without intimating whether the Board has intended to appoint Mutawalli or intended to bring the waqf under direct management has passed the impugned order. On this ground also the impugned order is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned order, dated 24.02.2023, and the consequential order, dated 10.03.2023, are hereby quashed.
8.The respondents are directed to issue notice and also indicate whether they intended to appoint Mutawalli or intend to bring the waqf under direct management. The respondents shall grant adequate opportunity to the petitioner and thereafter to consider the issues such as whether Mutawalli has to be appointed or whether the waqf ought to be brought under direct the management. Therefore, the respondents shall issue appropriate notice to the petitioner and all interested parties and afford an opportunity and thereafter, pass an order, in accordance with law. The said exercise shall be concluded within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
9.With these directions, this Writ Petition is allowed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.” 3/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:20:36 pm )
4.In the light of the above order of this Court, dated 14.08.2023, a show cause notice was issued on 20.11.2023, wherein the petitioner was called upon to explain as to why the petitioner should not be removed from the post of Mutawalli on account of the fact that the petitioner had executed the lease in favour of his wife and son, on 24.03.2010, for the period of 20 years without prior permission from the Waqf Board and contrary to the provision of the Waqf Act.
5.The second allegation in the said Notice was that the petitioner has no records to substantiate that the petitioner was appointed as a Hereditary trustee. The third allegation as against the petitioner was that the petitioner has not submitted the accounts of the Waqf. The petitioner has replied to the show cause notice dated 20.11.2023, issued by the Waqf Board. An enquiry was held pursuant to the show cause notice and thereafter, a resolution was passed on 14.02.2024, wherein the content of the allegation in the show cause notice has been extracted as:-
“1.ePq;fs; ghGfhd; Kcwk;kJ ~h gd;db gP jh;fh tf;gpw;F nrhe;jkhd nrhj;jpid cq;fspd; kidtp kw;Wk; kfd; ngaUf;F 20 Mz;Lfs; fhyj;jpw;F nra;J gjpT nfhLj;Js;sPh;fs;. ,J tf;G rl;lk;> 1995> gphpT 64(i)f;F KuzhdJ.
2.ePq;fs; ghGfhd; Kcwk;kJ ~h gd;db gP jh;fh tf;gpw;F mq;fPfhuk; ,y;yhky; Kj;jty;ypahf nray;gl;L te;Js;sPh;fs;. NkYk;> ePq;fs; guk;giu topapy; tUgth;
vd;gjw;fhd ve;j MtzKk; jhf;fy; nra;atpy;iy. ,J tf;G rl;lk; 1995-f;F KuzhzJ.” 4/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:20:36 pm )
6.A resolution dated 14.02.2024, of the Waqf Board reads as under:-
“1.tf;gpd; Kj;jty;yp Nkw;gb tf;gpd; nrhj;ij tf;G thupa mDkjp ,y;yhky; jpUr;rp ciwA+u; rhu;gjpthsu; mYtyfj;jpy; jdJ kfd; jpU.~hupah]; ngaupy; gl;lh vz;.411 nfhz;l tf;gpw;F nrhe;jkhd ru;Nt vz;.193/2-y;
cs;s 1.93 Vf;fu;/nrz;l; ,lj;ij 29 Mz;Lfs; Fj;jiff;F tUlj;jpw;F &.4>000/- tPjk; Mtz vz;. 1912/2010-d; %yk; thupa mDkjpapy;yhky; gj;jpu gjpT nra;Js;shu;. NkYk; Nkw;gb tf;G thupa mDkjp ,y;yhky; jpUr;rp ciwA+u; rhu;gjpthsu; mYtyfj;jpy; jdJ kidtp A.jpy;~hj; Ngfk; ngaupy; gl;lh vz;.411 nfhz;l tf;gpw;F nrhe;jkhd ru;Nt vz;.193/1-y; cs;s 3.00 Vf;fu;/nrz;l; ,lj;ij 29 Mz;Lfs; Fj;jiff;F tUlj;jpw;F &.6>000/- tPjk; Mtz vz;.1911/2010-d; %yk; thupa mDkjpapy;yhky; gj;jpu gjpT nra;Js;shu;................
,jidg; guprPyid nra;j thupak;> jpUr;rp khtl;lk;> ghg;Gfhd; nkh`k;kj; ~h Gz;zb gPu; ju;fh tf;gpd; Kj;jty;yp [dhg;.mg;Jy; ryhk; tf;gpw;F nrhe;jkhd ru;Nt vz;.193/y; 1 Vf;fu; 9 nrd;l; nrhj;jpid 29 Mz;Lfs; Fj;jiff;F jd; kfd; ngupaYk; ru;Nt vz;.193/1y; 3 Vf;fu; epyj;ij jdJ kidtp ngaupYk; 29 fhyj;jpw;F gjpT nfhLj;Js;shu;. ,J gw;wp mtu; tpsf;fk; $Wk; NghJ mt;thW gjpT nra;jij xg;Gf; nfhz;L gpwu; me;j epyj;ij gj;jpug; gjpT Nkw;nfhs;s Kw;gl;ljhy; mt;thW vOjp itj;jjhf $wg;gLtJ Vw;Gilajhf ,y;iy Vndd;why; tf;G nrhj;Jf;fs; Fj;jif tpjpfs;> 2014d;gb filgpbj;J 11 khj fhyj;jpw;F Kiwahd egu;fSf;F gjpT Fj;jif gj;jpuk; %yKk; Fj;jif Vw;gLj;j KbAk;. tf;G rl;lj;jpw;F Kuzdhf jdJ kidtp kw;Wk; kfd; ngaupYk; Fj;jifg; gj;jpuq;fs; Vw;gLj;jpapUg;gJ vd;gJ Vw;Wf;nfhs;sf;$bajy;y. ,t;tf;gpw;F mq;fPfhuk; ,y;yhky; Kj;jty;ypahf nray;gl;L te;Js;sJk;> mtu; guk;giu topapy; tUgtu; vd;gjw;fhd ve;j MtzKk; jhf;fy; nra;atpy;iy vd;gJk; njupa tUfpwJ. Kj;jty;ypahf nray;gLtjw;fhd Mtzk; cupa jhf;fy; nra;a Ntz;Lk;. NkYk; guk;giu topapy; tUtjhf vLj;Jf; nfhz;lhYk;
$l %d;whtJ Fw;wr;rhl;il nghWj;J thupa fz;fhzpg;ghsu; mwpf;ifapy; mt;thW tuT nryT fzf;F jhf;fy; nra;atpy;iy vd;Nwh my;yJ rfhaj;
njhif nrYj;jtpy;iyNah vd;Nwh $wtpy;iy mgptpUj;jpapid nghWj;J Fw;wr;rhl;L ,y;iy. vdNt %d;whtJ Fw;wr;rhl;L kl;Lk; ep&gpf;fg;gltpy;iy. Mdhy;5/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:20:36 pm ) xd;W kw;Wk; ,uz;lhtJ Fw;wr;rhl;Lf;s; ep&gpf;fg;gl;l fhuzj;jpdhy; tf;gpd; Kj;jty;yp [dhg;.mg;Jy; ryhk; tf;gpw;F nrhe;jkhd nrhj;jpid jd;Dila kidtp kw;Wk; kfd; ngaUf;Fg; gjpT nra;jij cWjp nra;J> mth;fis tf;G rl;lk; 1995> gphpT 64d;gb ePf;fk; nra;Jk; tf;gpd; jw;Nghija #o;epiyiaAk; kw;Wk; mtrpaj;ijAk; fUj;jpy; nfhz;L ,t;tf;gpid tf;G rl;lk; 1995 gpupT 65d;gb jkpo;ehL tf;G thupak; jd;Dila Neub epu;thfj;jpd; fPo; nfhz;L tu thupak; Vfkdjhf jPu;khdpf;fpwJ.”
7.Pursuant to the above said resolution of the first respondent Waqf Board, the Gazette publication was made on 28.02.2024. This was again challenged for the second time by the petitioner before this Court in W.P.(MD)No.9753 of 2024. An interim order came to be passed on 22.04.2024. The interim order was granted based on the submission of the petitioner that the Waqf Board had fixed a personal hearing on 14.02.2024, pursuant to a personal hearing notice dated 09.02.2024.
8.However, no orders were passed. It appears that on the same day, the Gazette Notification, dated 28.02.2024, was withdrawn. Recording the same, the above Writ Petition was dismissed as infructuous by this Court vide order dated 22.10.2024. Based on the above said resolution was passed on 14.02.2024, content which has been mentioned above. 6/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:20:36 pm )
9.The first respondent has now issued impugned Gazette Notification, dated 16.07.2025, under Section 65 of the Waqf Act for direct Management of the subject Waqf.
10.The petitioner has submitted that there is no justification in issuance of the impugned Gazette Notification as no resolution was passed afresh pursuant to the order passed by the Court in the earlier round of litigation. That apart, it is submitted that the post of Mutawalli is Hereditary in nature. In this connection, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to the appointment of the petitioner's father as Mutawalli on 22.05.1976, and thereafter, the appointment of the petitioner as Mutawalli on 05.10.1989.
11.It is also submitted that there is no justification in coming to the conclusion that the appointment of the petitioner as a Mutawalli was not Hereditary as the period would have been otherwise confined to three years.
12.As far as, the lease deed that was executed in favour of the petitioner son and the wife is concerned, it is submitted that the petitioner was ill and that the petitioner has cancelled the sale deed on 04.08.2022. As far as the failure to 7/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:20:36 pm ) submit the account is concerned, the petitioner has complied by submitting the records and their accounts to the respondent Board.
13.The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand, would submit that the proforma of the Waqf stipulates that the rule of succession to the post of Mutawalli is not known and one Sulaiman Khan Mayana claimed as its own while Syed Abdul Azees also. Thus, it is submitted that rule of succession as per the proforma is not clear as to whether the post of Mutawalli is Hereditary in nature or for a fixed duration.
14.The question that arises for consideration whether the respondents were justified in proceedings pursuant to the resolution passed on 14.02.2024, contents which has been extracted above.
15.The post of Mutawalli is not Hereditary as evident from the reading of the proforma of the Waqf content of which has been extracted in the Board resolution dated 14.02.2024.
16.A copy of the handwritten proforma in R.C.(9c)179.55, which is enclosed by the author in a letter dated 10.08.1955, reads as under:- 8/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:20:36 pm ) “I submit herewith a proforma report relating with Pappu Khan Mohamed Sha Durgah with the statement of Abdul Aziz and the contra petition of Sulaiman Khan Mayana.”
17.There is no dispute that the petitioner's father succeeded to the post of Mutawalli on 22.05.1976, in the proceedings of the Waqf Board in Item No.59, bearing reference Rc.No.4873/B5/76/TRY, for the Waqf Board. In the said proceedings, names of two other persons, namely, Abdul Aziz and Sulaiman Khan have also been referred to. Content of the said proceedings of the Waqf Board is reproduced below:-
“Since Thiru.K.Sardar Khan is in management of the above Wakf and its properties and has been rendering services for the last eleven years and the present incumbent belongs to the same genealogical relationship and is actually incharge of one-third of the share as represented and inherited from Macca B1, and whereas the other two-third share-holders Thiru.Abdul Aziz and Thiru Sulaiman Khan Mayan has alienated the properties and contested in the courts against the interest of the Wakf and they wanted to obliterate the Wakf nature of the properties in which Thiru Sardar Khan alone defended all the cases and recovered and safeguarded the Wakf properties and in view of the fact he has been acting as Joint Muthawalli with Thirumathi Macca Bibi and Thiru Abdul Aziz and now that Tmt.Macca Bi is no more and in view of the past hostile conduct adverse to the Wakf of Thiru Abdul Aziz and Sulaiman Khan the Board hereby resolves to appoint Thiru.K.Sardar Khan as the sole Mutawalli of the above said Pappu Khan Mohamed Sha Durgah and Mosque, Pandamangalam Village, Woriyur, Tiruchirappalli.” 9/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:20:36 pm )
18.After the petitioner's father K.Sardhar Khan died, the petitioner was appointed as Mutawalli. The recognition of the petitioner as the Mutawalli, since the year 1989, has not been questioned.
19.Clause 10 in the hand written proforma reads as under:-
“The Rule of succession if withdrawn. Sulaiman Khan Mayana claims it as its own while Syed Abdul Azeez claims it also.”
20.The post of Mutawalli is not hereditary as per the records that are available with the Waqf Board. However, the facts remain that the father of the petitioner namely, K.Sardar Khan, was declared as Mutawalli, since his appointment in the year 1989. Prior to that the father of the deponent, namely, K.Sardar Khan, acted as a Joint Mutawalli along with Thirumathi Macca Bibi. There has been no rival claims to the post of Mutawalli after 1989. The petitioner namely, Janab.K.S.Abdul Salam, since his recognition as Mutawalli from 05.10.1989, continued as the Mutawalli of the Wakf.
21.Considering the same, the respondents are not justified in removing the said Janab. K.S.Abdul Salam as Mutawalli of the petitioner Waqf. However the facts remains that alienations were made in favour of his wife and son on 10/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:20:36 pm ) 24.03.2010, by executing the sale deed in favour of the petitioner's wife and son which has been cancelled on 04.08.2022. Thus, mistake committed has been undone.
22.Considering the fact that there are no other grounds available for direct Management, I am inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition quashing the impugned notification and the decision taken by the Board on 14.02.2024. It is made clear that although the post of Mutawalli is not hereditary, the deponent will continue to be Mutawalli of the Waqf as long as he complies with all the statutory requirements that are expected for him under the provision of the Waqf Act and Rules made thereunder.
23.In case, the deponent deviates in future, it is always open to the Waqf Board to take over the Waqf under direct Management in terms of Section 65 of the Waqf Act.
24.Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed.
06.08.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No RJR 11/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:20:36 pm ) To
1.The Chief Executive Officer, The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, No.1, Jaffer Syrang Street, Vallal Seethakathi Nagar, Chennai.
2.The Superintendent of Wakf, Tiruchirappalli.
3.The Inspector of Wakf, Tiruchirappalli.
12/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:20:36 pm ) C.SARAVANAN, J.
RJR W.P.(MD)No.21214 of 2025 06.08.2025 13/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:20:36 pm )