Kaliyammal v. Tamilnadu Wakf Board,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 03.09.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA Kaliyammal ... Petitioner -vs1.Tamil Nadu Waqf Board, rep., by its Chief Executive Officer, No.1, Jaffer Syrang Street, Vallal Setthakathi Nagar, Chennai 600 001.

2.The Commissioner, Tiruchirappalli City Corporation, Cantonment, Trichy -1.

... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Mandamus, to direct the second respondent to conduct enquiry separately on petitioner's representation dated 19.08.2025. For Petitioner :

Ms.G.Kalaivani For Respondents :

Mr.D.S.Haroon Rasheed Standing Counsel (for R1) Mr.Sri Prasad for M/s.R.B.Law Associates (for R2)

O R D E R

The writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the second respondent to conduct enquiry on the petitioner's representation dated 19.08.2025.

2. Heard the arguments of Ms.G.Kalaivani, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.D.S.Haroon Rasheed , learned Standing Counsel, who takes notice for the first respondent and Mr.Sri Prasad, learned counsel, who takes notice for the second respondent. By consent of both sides, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

3. According to the petitioner, she has been residing in the waqf property before 2000 and she developed the building in question in the year 2001 after getting permission from the trustees of the Waqf, who administered the Waqf in the year 2001. When the petitioner developed the building, she has no knowledge that she had to get approval from the Court and Corporation of Trichy City. In the year 2007, the Waqf properties were transferred to the control of Tamil Nadu Waqf Board. It is the contention of the petitioner that she has been paying rent to

the said Waqf till date and she is also paying drainage tax to the Tiruchirappali City Corporation. While that being so, the petitioner was asked by the Assistant Commissioner (Srirangam Zone) to produce the approval document for the said construction. In this regard, the petitioner has sent a representation to the respondents on 19.08.2025, but the same is yet to be considered. Hence, this petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit that the petitioner's representation would be considered and order would be passed in accordance with law, within two months.

5. In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, the second respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 19.08.2025 and pass order on its own merits, within two months from the date receipt of a copy of this order, after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the first respondent.

6. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. 03.09.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Rmk To The Commissioner, Tiruchirappalli City Corporation, Cantonment, Trichy -1.

P.T.ASHA, J.

Rmk 03.09.2025