Madras High Court
R.K.Madhavan vs Thulukan Chatram Charities Trust on 6 September, 2022
C.R.P.No.959 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED:06.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
C.R.P.No.959 of 2022
R.K.Madhavan ...Petitioner
Versus
1.Thulukan Chatram Charities Trust,
Rep by its Muthavalli,
Ameenuddin Abdul Hasan,
S/o.Muthursa Hasan,
Naravarikuppam, Red Hills, Tiruvallur District.
2. District Collector of Thiruvallur District,
Thiruttani – Thiruvallur Road,
Thiruvallur Town.
3.District Revenue Officer,
Collector Office,
Thiruttani – Thiruvalluvar Road,
Thiruvallur Town and District.
4.Thahsildar,
Madhavaram Taluk Office,
Thiruvallur Town and District. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of
India, r/w Section 83(a) or Waqf Act, against the judgment and decree dated
30.11.2021 in O.S.No.53 of 2019 on the file of Tamil Nadu Waqf Tribunal,
Chennai.
For Petitioner :M/s.Uma Shankar
For R1 : Mr.N.A.Nissar Ahmed
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 18
C.R.P.No.959 of 2022
For R2 to R4 :Ms.Dr.S.Suriya
Additional Government Pleader
O R D E R
This Revision is filed challenging the judgment and decree
passed by Wakf Tribunal granting declaration that order passed by the 3rd
respondent dated 04.07.2016, ordering registration of the land measuring 0.00.5
hectares (60ftx56ft) in S.No.97B/3F of Naravarikuppam Village, Madavaram
Taluk in the name of revision petitioner is null and void and not binding upon
1st respondent.
2. The first respondent is a Trust called Thulukkan Chatram
Charities Trust administered by Mutawalli. It filed a suit for declaration that
the order dated 04.07.2016 passed by the 3rd respondent is null and void and not
binding upon it. According to the first respondent, originally it was the owner
of property described in the plaint in S.No.97B/3F under Inam title deed
T.D.1709. After coming into force of Minor Inam Abolition Act 30/63, Inam
patta was granted in patta No.197 in favour of first respondent by Settlement
Tahsildar, Chengalpet, by his order dated 22.04.1970. The petitioner herein,
challenged the same before the Assistant Settlement Officer and the same was
dismissed on 29.02.1972 as evidenced by Ex.A9. The revision petitioner again
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.959 of 2022
challenged the said order before the Settlement Officer and his appeal was
dismissed by order dated 17.12.1974 as evidenced by Ex.A10. The revision
petitioner had taken the matter to the Board of Revenue by revision and the
same was also dismissed by order of Board of Revenue dated 28.10.1975
marked as Ex.A11. Therefore, the patta granted in favour of first respondent by
Settlement Tahsildar under Minor Inam Abolition Act proceedings became
final. After long time, the revision petitioner filed a petition dated 21.01.2013
before Revenue Divisional Officer, Ambattur, seeking issuance of patta in
respect of very same property and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the
same, the revision petitioner filed a revision before 3rd respondent and the said
revision was allowed by order dated 04.07.2016, directing grant of patta in the
name of revision petitioner. The first respondent Trust filed the above suit for
declaration that order passed by the 3rd respondent is null and void mainly on
the ground that the 3rd respondent has no right or jurisdiction to order patta in
the name of revision petitioner after Inam patta granted in the name of first
respondent/Trust attained finality by order passed by Board of Revenue.
3. The revision petitioner filed a written statement stating that the
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.959 of 2022
suit property was purchased by his grandmother Ammani Ammal under sale
deed dated 02.01.1907 marked as Ex.A2. The revision petitioner further
submitted that said Ammani Ammal filed O.S.No.71 of 1931 on the file of
District Munsif Court, Poonamallee, against the 3rd parties and the first
respondent Trust, which was arrayed as 5th defendant therein. In the said suit it
was claimed by Ammani Ammal that said suit property belonged to first
respondent Trust and said Ammani Ammal put up building thereon and let out
the same to tenants and collecting the rent. It was also submitted that Ammani
Ammal was paying rent to the first respondent Trust. It was claimed that in the
said suit, finding was rendered that Ammani Ammal acquired Kudiwaram right
in the suit site as against first respondent Trust. The revision petitioner further
averred that based on the Civil Court finding, the 3 rd respondent considered his
application and came to the conclusion that revision petitioner had proved his
right over the suit property and granted patta in his favour. Therefore, he
prayed for dismissal of the suit.
4. The 3rd respondent filed a written statement and the same was
adopted by other official defendants, wherein, it was averred that the 3rd
respondent had gone through the various documents including the sale deed
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.959 of 2022
dated 02.01.1907 and passed the order challenged in the suit. It was also
submitted that the order was passed by the 3rd respondent by applying his mind
to the documents produced before him and hence, the suit was liable to be
dismissed.
5. The Wakf Tribunal on careful consideration of oral and documentary
evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the suit property is
the Wakf property endowed to the first respondent Trust. It also found that
under the proceedings initiated under Minor Inam Abolition Act, patta was
granted in favour of the first respondent Trust and no patta was granted in
favour of revision petitioner. The proceedings initiated under Minor Inam
Abolition Act, attained finality by the order passed by Board of Revenue and
the revision petitioner has not filed any suit claiming title or possession over
the suit property thereafter. The Wakf Tribunal found that the 3rd respondent
passed order in favour of revision petitioner without considering the material
documents pertain to Minor Inam Abolition Proceedings and hence the same
was not sustainable. The Tribunal also found that the suit property had been
registered as a Wakf and the same has become final, consequently, decreed the
suit filed by first respondent as prayed for. Aggrieved by the same, the revision
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.959 of 2022
petitioner has come up with this revision.
6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the suit
property was originally purchased by revision petitioner's grandmother viz.,
Ammani Ammal under Ex.A2-sale deed and her Kudiwaram right over the suit
property was recognized by Civil Court under Ex.B2. Therefore, the order
passed by the 3rd respondent by taking into consideration, the findings of the
Civil Court is correct. He further submitted that after coming into force Minor
Inam Abolition Act, the entire extent of property situated in S.No.97B/3F was
vested with the Government and the Settlement Tahsildar under Minor Inam
Abolition Act had granted patta to entire extent in S.No.97B/3F to the first
respondent excluding a small extent 0.00.5 hectares. The said small extent was
classified by lane poromboke, a new sub division was assigned to it in
S.No.97B/3F2. The learned counsel further submitted that the suit property
which is a small extent measuring 60ft x 56ft lies in S.No.97B/3F2, which was
classified as a lane poromboke and therefore, the first respondent is not entitled
to lay any claim over the same.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent submitted
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.959 of 2022
that the right of the first respondent Trust over the suit property was recognized
by Settlement Tahsildar under Minor Inam Abolition Act and Inam patta was
granted in it's favour under Ex.A8. The said order passed by the Settlement
Tahsildar was confirmed by hierarchy of authorities established under Minor
Inam Abolition Act and attained its finality. Therefore, the revision petitioner
is not entitled to reopen the same by making a fresh application before the 3rd
respondent. The learned counsel also drawn the attention of this Court, to
Ex.B2-judgment passed in suit O.S.No.71 of 1931 filed by Ammani Ammal,
wherein she admitted the title of first respondent Trust over the ground site.
The learned counsel also submitted that the suit property is a registered Wakf
property and further submitted that once a property is recognised as a Wakf
property and the same will remain as Wakf property. Therefore, he sought for
confirmation of the order passed by the 3rd respondent.
8. The learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4 submitted that
the 3rd respondent by taking into consideration the sale deed in the name of
Ammani Ammal and also the judgment in O.S.No.71 of 1931 were marked as
Exs.B1 and B2, correctly came to the conclusion and ordered patta in favour of
revision petitioner.
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.959 of 2022
9. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for
either side and perused the documents filed in the typed set of papers.
10. The revision petitioner laid claim over the suit property mainly
based on the sale deed in favour of his grand mother viz., Ammani Ammal,
marked as Ex.B1 and judgment passed in a suit filed by Ammani Ammal in
O.S.No.71 of 1931 marked as Ex.B2. The perusal of Ex.B2 would suggest that
the said Ammani Ammal admitted title of first respondent over the site of the
suit property. She has specifically averred that she had been paying ground
rent to the first respondent. Even in Ex.B1-title deed, it was mentioned that site
of the suit property belonged to the first respondent. Therefore, the said
Ammani Ammal under whom revision petitioner claims title herself admitted
that ground site of the suit property belongs to first respondent. The revision
petitioner tried to improve his case by taking shelter under findings in Ex.B2
judgment that Ammani Ammal acquired Kudiwaram right in the suit property
as against the first respondent. The said contention of the revision petitioner
cannot be accepted in view of coming into force of Minor Inam Abolition Act
30/63. It is not in dispute on coming into force of said Act the minor Inam
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.959 of 2022
properties including the suit property vested with the Government and
thereafter the patta was granted by Inam Tahsildar under the provisions of
Minor Inam Abolition Act. In the case on hand, the Settlement Tahsildar,
granted patta in favour of first respondent under Ex.A8 on 22.04.1970. The
said order was confirmed by Assistant Settlement Officer under Ex.A9, dated
29.02.1972. The order by Assistant Settlement Officer was again confirmed by
Settlement Officer under Ex.A10, dated 17.12.1974. Finally, the said order was
confirmed by Board of Revenue under Ex.A11 by order dated 28.10.1975.
Therefore, the patta granted in favour of first respondent, in respect of the suit
property had attained finality and the same has not been challenged by revision
petitioner in the manner known to law. It is admitted case that no patta had
been granted under Minor Inam Abolition Act in favour of revision petitioner.
Though revision petitioner was a party to the proceedings initiated under Minor
Inam Abolition Act before the hierarchy of authorities, he allowed it to become
final by order of Board of Revenue. Hence, even if there is a finding in Ex.B2
that revision petitioner's predecessor namely Ammani Ammal acquired
Kudiwaram right, the same was not recognized by any of the authorities
constituted under Minor Inam Abolition Act. Patta under Minor Inam
Abolition Act was granted only to the first respondent Trust and no patta has
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.959 of 2022
been given to the revision petitioner.
11. In these circumstances, it is not open to the revision petitioner
to approach the 3rd respondent District Revenue Divisional Officer and seek
patta once again after authorities under the Minor Inam Abolition Act
negatived his claim. The 3rd respondent erred in ignoring the material piece of
evidence available before it and therefore, the Tribunal correctly came to the
conclusion that the order passed by 3rd respondent is null and void.
12. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent relied on the
following two decisions for the proposition that under Section 13 of Minor
Inam Abolition Act, unless owner of the building is also owner of the site,
cannot claim patta under Minor Abolition Act.
(i) CDJ 2000 MHC 927 reported in Shri Thiagarajaswami
Devasthanam, Thiruvallur, Thanjavur District Vs The Commissioner of
Land Administration, Chepauk and others, equivalent to 2000(2) LW 103;
(ii) CDJ 1995 SC 954 reported in R.Manicka Naicker Vs
E.Elumalai Naicker, equivalent to 1995 (4) SCC 156.
13. In R.Manicka Naicker vs. E.Elumalai Naicker cited supra, the
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.959 of 2022
Apex Court has observed as follows:-
“12. The contention of the appellant that by virtue of
Section 13, the land underneath the building also vests in him
must be rejected. Section 13 does not vest any property in a
person in whom that property did not vest prior to the
appointed day. It merely sets out that a building shall vest in
the person who owned it immediately before the appointed
day. Section 13(2) merely provides that the site on which the
building stands will also be covered by section 13(1). Hence
the site on which the building stands will vest in the person
who owned it immediately before the appointed date.
13. In the case of Sri Kumarakattalai
Subrahmanyaswami Devasthanam v. K.S. Sunderarajulu
Chettiar, ILR (1975) 1 Mad., 501, a learned Single Judge of
the Madras High Court considered the provisions of Section
13 of the said Act and held that unless the owner of the
building is also the owner of the site, the site will not vest in
the owner. The effect of sub-section (2) is not to make a
statutory transfer of the land to the owner of the building
where it had not formerly belonged to him. An inamdar who
continues to be in constructive possession of the site even
after the notified date would be entitled to recover possession
from his tenant. We respect-fully agree with these findings of
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.959 of 2022
the learned Single Judge.
14. Moreover, in the present case, the patta granted
expressly provides that the appellant has been granted a
ground rent patta only in respect of the building, while the
patta for the site has been granted to the respondent. A joint
patta seems to have been granted in the names of both the
appellant and the respondent because of the claim of the
appellant to the building and the claim of the respondent to
the site on which the building stands. Therefore, looking to
the nature of the grant of the patta also it cannot be said that
by virtue of the patta, the site on which the building stands
has been, in any manner, transferred to the appellant or vests
in him. The appellant cannot, therefore, claim that the decree
for possession cannot be executed against him because he
has become the owner of the site.”
14. In Shri Thiagarajaswami Devasthanam, Thiruvallur,
Thanjavur vs. The Commissioner of Land Administration, cited supra, a
learned Judge of this Court while considering scope of Section 13 of Minor
Inam Abolition Act, observed as follows:-
“9. I am of the view that the issue raised in the writ petition
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.959 of 2022
is concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in (1995) 2
MLJ. 121 (S.C.),: A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 1613. The Supreme Court has
considered the scope, object and purpose of the Tamil Nadu Act
30 of 1963, particularly, the scope of Sec.13 of the said Act and
held as under:
“....Sec.13 does not vest any property in a person in whom
that property did not vest prior to the appointed day. It merely sets
out that a building shall vest in the person who owned it
immediately before the appointed day, Sec.13(2) merely provides
that the site on which the building stands will also be converted by
Sec.13(1). Hence, the site on which the buildings stands will vest
in the person who owned it immediately before the appointed date.
[Italics suppled] 14. In the case of Sri Kumarkattalai
Subramanyaswami Devasthanam v. K.S.Sundararajulu Chettiar
Sri Kumarkattalai Subramanyaswami Devasthanam v.
K.S.Sundararajulu Chettiar Sri Kumarkattalai
Subrahmanyaswami Devasthanam v. K.S.Sundararajulu Chettiar,
I.L.R. (1975) 1 Mad. 501 a learned single Judge of the Madras
High Court considered the provision of Sec.13 of the said Act nad
held that unless the owner of the building is also the owner of the
site, the site will not vest in the owner. The effect of sub-section (2)
is not to make a statutory transfer of the site to the owner of the
building where it had not formerly belonged to him. An inamdar
who continues to be in constructive possession of the site even
after the notified date would be entitled to recover possession
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.959 of 2022
from his tenant. We respectfully agree with these findings of the
learned single Judge.” [Italics supplied]
Therefore, it is settled law that unless the owner of the building is also
owner of the site, he is not entitled to claim right over site and claim patta under
Minor Inam Abolition Act, as per the decisions cited supra.
15. As far as the case on hand is concerned, the patta was granted
in favour of first respondent Trust under the proceedings initiated under Minor
Inam Abolition Act. The same has not been challenged by the revision
petitioner in the manner known to law and the same had become final. It is also
clear that under Minor Inam Abolition Act, no patta has been granted in favour
of revision petitioner recognizing his alleged right over the buildings standing
in the suit property. Therefore, it is not open to the revision petitioner to
approach the 3rd respondent and seek patta on the strength of the decree passed
in favour of his predecessor in the year 1932 ignoring the orders passed by
authorities constituted under Minor Inam Abolition Act.
16. Therefore, I concur with the finding rendered by Wakf
Tribunal and the same is confirmed.
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.959 of 2022
17. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner further
submitted that in the Settlement proceedings total extent in S.No.97B/3F, was
vested with Government as per Minor Inam Abolition Act and thereafter patta
was granted in favour of first respondent Trust except for a small extent of
0.00.5 hectares in S.No.97B/3F, which was classified as lane poromboke by
Settlement Tahsildar and the suit property lies in that lane poromboke. The
said contention of the revision petitioner cannot be considered because he has
not made any plea in support of such contention. In his written statement, it
was not his case that subject land was classified as lane poromboke in
Settlement Proceedings and the suit property lies in lane poromboke. The
revision petitioner is not entitled to raise a new contention without the support
of pleadings. Hence, the second contention made by the learned counsel for the
revision petitioner is also rejected.
18. In view of the discussions made above, there is no illegality or
irregularity in the order passed by the Wakf Tribunal and hence the Civil
Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.959 of 2022
06.09.2022
ub
Index: Yes/ No
Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.959 of 2022
To
The Tamil Nadu Waqf Tribunal,
Chennai.
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.959 of 2022
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
ub
C.R.P.No.959 of 2022
06.09.2022
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
