Madras High Court
Janab K.S.Sha Hazarath vs Tamil Nadu Wakf Board on 10 July, 2007
Author: M.Chockalingam
Bench: M.Chockalingam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 10-7-2007 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM C.R.P.NPD Nos.1864 and 1866 of 2007 and MP Nos.1, 1, 2 and 2 of 2007 Janab K.S.Sha Hazarath .. Petitioner in CRP 1864/2007 Janab Syed Shahbash Hussaini .. Petitioner in CRP 1866/2007 vs Tamil Nadu Wakf Board represented by its Secretary No.7/4, 9th Cross Street, Indira Nagar Adyar, Chennai 600 020. .. Respondent in both revisions Civil revision petition filed under Sec.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the fair and decreetal order of the Wakf Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge), Tiruvannamalai, in WTOP No.14 and 13/2003 dated 5.6.2007. For Petitioner : Mr.Parthasarathy Senior Counsel for Mr.J.Ramakrishnan For Respondent : Mr.A.S.Kaizer COMMON ORDER
Challenge is made to a common order made by the Wakf Tribunal namely the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai, in WTOP No.14 and 13 of 2003 dismissing those petitions.
2.The Court heard the learned Counsel on either side.
3.These revision petitioners brought forth two applications stating that the order passed by the respondent Wakf Board in Item No.109/2000 in R.C.13692/97/B4/TVM dated 28.8.2002, against them and also affixed in the Mosque on 6.2.2003, has got to be set aside on the grounds that the Wakf Board had no jurisdiction to pass the order; that the petitioners' mosque is not a public Wakf; that it is a private family property; that the respondent has no jurisdiction or locus standi to pass an order, and that too, the order has been passed against the principles of natural justice; that Sulaieman Shan Mosque and Saidani Bi Dharga were the private properties of the petitioners; that they are being administered by the petitioners for a long time in their capacity as the private properties; that so long as it is private wakf, no order could be passed by terming it as public wakf; that further, the respondent failed to note that the document dated 2.10.1988, was a contra one; that it would clearly indicate that they were all private properties; that originally, there was a judgment and decree in O.S.No.142/73 dated 23.4.1997, wherein it has been clearly found that the petitioners are the hereditary Muthavallis, and they were never appointed as Muthavallis by the Wakf Board; that since it is a private wakf, no order could be passed; that even the order has not been properly served upon them, and under the circumstances, it was to be set aside.
4.The petition was strongly contested by the respondent Wakf Board stating that the petition was not maintainable; that under Sec.6 of the Wakf Act, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction; that further in the year 1997, a writ petition was filed in W.P.No.16080/97 with reference to the petition mentioned wakf; that on the basis of the orders of the High Court, an enquiry was conducted by the Wakf Board legally; that the present petitioners were also parties therein; that they have fully participated in the enquiry; and that the Wakf Board passed the order on 28.8.2002 after giving sufficient opportunity thereon. Added further that on 1.2.2000, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioners under Sec.64 of the Act; that the mosque was actually notified in the year 1959; that if a person is aggrieved by the notification, he should have taken by way of a suit within one year from the date of notification, but not done so; that apart from that, the property actually came to the hands of the Wakf Board by way of notification, and under the circumstances, it loses the character of private property, and hence, the petitions were to be dismissed.
5.Formulating necessary points for determination, the Wakf Tribunal found that the petitions were in time and were also filed before the Tribunal having jurisdiction. As far as the character of the property was concerned, it has found that the properties were wakf properties, and actually, they lost the character of the private property in the long past and rightly too. In the instant case, as could be seen from the available materials, in respect of the property in question, a notification was issued in the year 1959 itself. No challenge was made till this time, and there was a writ petition filed before this Court, wherein these petitioners were also parties, and it was referred to the Wakf Board for proper enquiry. Accordingly, the enquiry has been conducted, and under the circumstances, the petitioners could not plead no knowledge whatsoever. As far as the petitioners are concerned, for a long past, they had been submitting the accounts before the Wakf Board. If the properties were not under the supervision and control of the Wakf Board, there was no need for the petitioners to submit accounts to the Wakf Board. In such circumstances, the petitioners cannot claim it as private property, and they have got no such character. But, on the contrary, sufficient materials are available for the Tribunal to record a finding that the property continued to be under the supervision and control of the Wakf Board. Hence, the order of the Tribunal has got to be sustained, and accordingly, it is sustained.
6.In the result, both the civil revision petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected MPs are also dismissed.
nsv/ To:
The Wakf Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge) Tiruvannamalai