K.Maideen Shah, v. The Tamilnadu Wakf Board,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.03.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI and W.M.P(MD)No.358 of 2018 K.Maideen Shah ... Petitioner vs.

1.The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, Rep. by the Chief Executive Officer, No.1, Jaffar Sirang Street, Vallal Seethakathi Nagar, Chennai-1.

2.The District Collector, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

3.The District Revenue Officer, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

5.The Thasildar, Natham Taluk,'

Dindigul District.

6.The Wakf Inspector, Eidgah Mahal, Mohamathiapuram, Dindigul.

1/6

7.Lal Batcha 8.Korabha Jaber 9.Akbar 10.Hairunisha Beevi ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of Na.Ka.No. 29703/16/I-7, dated 09.11.2017 issued by the third respondent and quash the same as illegal in competent and without jurisdiction and consequently direct the second respondent to take action for recovery of the proeprty belonging to the wakf 'Karanthamalai Sheik Bava Dargah' in S.No.117/1 measuring 64 cents in Natham Village, Dindigul District, from the private respondents 7 to 10 and persons claims under them as per the Wakf Act, within a stipulated time. For Petitioner : Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar For Respondents : Mr.D.S.Haroon Rasheed for R1 & R6 Mr.C.Satheesh Government Advocate for R2 to R5 No Appearance for R7 to R10

ORDER

Heard Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.D.S.Haroon Rasheed, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 6 and Mr.C.Satheesh, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 2 to 5. No appearance on behalf of the respondents 7 to 10. 2/6

2.The writ petitioner challenges the impugned order passed by the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.29703/16/I-7, dated 09.11.2017. 3.The primordial contention of the petitioner is that the property comprised in S.No.117/1, Natham Taluk, Dindigul District, is a Wakf property registered in the name of 'Karanthamalai Sheik Bawa Dargah' in Inam fair register in T.D.No.

824. The private respondents suppressing the said factum have obtained patta and subdivision in their names in respect of the survey number, which is opposed to the letter and spirit of the Wakf Act, 1995. The petitioner made an application before the first respondent in the year 2010 regarding the illegal alienations made and for action to be taken for recovery of the said property. The first respondentBoard, has directed the respondents 2, 4 and 5 by a communication dated 20.10.2015 to cancel the pattas and protect the properties belonging to the Wakf Board. However, no action was taken by the revenue authorities thereupon. The petitioner, thereafter, moved a writ petition in W.P(MD)No.19127 of 2016 and this Court rightly directed the District Collector to take action under Section 52(2) of the Wakf Act and pass suitable orders. In pursuance of the said order, it appears that the District Collector has required the District Revenue Officer to conduct an enquiry. The petitioner was also called for enquiry and under the 3/6

bonafide impression that the District Revenue Officer was only conducting an enquiry and he will be forwarding him report to the District Collector to pass final orders, the petitioner also participated in the enquiry and submitted relevant documents. However, to their shock, the District Revenue Officer himself took upon the matter of deciding the dispute and passed the impugned order, which is under challenge. In fact, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, when the District Revenue Officer intended to conduct enquiry, the petitioner has objected stating that the order of this Court only directed the District Collector, and further, even under the Act, it was only the District Collector who is empowered to take action and the District Revenue Officer had no jurisdiction to go into the dispute. Despite the same, the District Revenue Officer proceeded to pass the impugned order. The said order is not only violating the order of this Court in W.P(MD)No.19127 of 2016 but also the mandate of Section 52(2) of the Wakf Act, 1995.

4.Further, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 6 also confirms that the property, which is the subject matter of the dispute in S.No.117/1, belongs to the Wakf and it is the District Collector alone who is empowered to enquire into the matter. Considering the above, the impugned order is clearly unsustainable and is liable to be set aside.

4/6

5.Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the second respondent to conduct a detailed enquiry after affording an opportunity to the petitioner as well as the private respondents in whose names, pattas have been mutated and thereafter, final orders shall be passed within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 11.03.2025 sji NCC: Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No To 1.The District Collector, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

2.The District Revenue Officer, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

4.The Thasildar, Natham Taluk,'

Dindigul District.

5/6

P.B.BALAJI , J.

sji 5.The Wakf Inspector, Eidgah Mahal, Mohamathiapuram, Dindigul.

11.03.2025 6/6