Madras High Court
Veeraiah vs Tamil Nadu Waqf Board on 17 August, 2023
C.R.P.(PD)Nos.996 of 2021, 429 & 434 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17.08.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.(PD)Nos.996 of 2021, 429 & 434 of 2022
and C.M.P.Nos.8016 of 2021, 2198 & 2218 of 2022
1.Veeraiah
2.Karunanidhi
3.Krishnan
4.Pone.Paulmani .. Petitioners in
all the three CRPs.
Vs.
1.Tamil Nadu Waqf Board
Represented by Chief Executive Officer
No.1, Jaffer Syrang Street
Vallal Seethakathi Nagar
Chennai-1.
2.Abdullah Sayabu
3.Lathif
4.Rahim
5.Abdul Kapoor
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD)Nos.996 of 2021, 429 & 434 of 2022
6.Shajahan
7.Ajimath Ali
8.Abdul Subakahn
9.Jaheer Hussain
10.Allah Baks
11.Naina Mohammed
12.Ahamed
13.Abdul
14.Sarthar Batcha
15.Kathar
16.Banubeevi
17.Ajeeba Sahb
18.Sheik Abdullah
19.Abdul Mubarak
20.John Beevi (died)
21.Mariyam Beevi
22.Bousal Begum (died)
23.Samsath Begum
24.Fathimabeevi
25.Ajmeerbeevi
26.Selvam Neesha
27.Jainul Arabu
28.Ahamaedsha
2/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD)Nos.996 of 2021, 429 & 434 of 2022
29.The Tahsildar
Tahsildar Office, Tirupathur.
30.The District Registrar
Sivagangai District.
31.The Sub-Registrar
Madhagupatti.
32.The District Collector
Sivagangai District. .. Respondents in
all the three CRPs.
(Except 1st respondent, all other respondents are
not necessary. The application was filed by the
1st respondent alone. Hence, the respondents 2 to
32 in CRP are given up. )
COMMON PRAYER: Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Article 227
of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decretal order dated
09.03.2021 in I.A.Nos.260, 261 & 267 of 2018 in O.A.No.219 of 2018
on the file of the Waqf Tribunal at Chennai.
In all the three CRPs.
For Petitioners : Mr.K.Krishnan
For R1 : Mr.Haja Mohideen Gisthi
For RR29 to 32 : Mr.B.Tamilnidhi
Additional Govt. Pleader (CS)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD)Nos.996 of 2021, 429 & 434 of 2022
COMMON ORDER
I.A.Nos.260, 261 & 267 of 2018 are the three applications, which
have been filed by the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board for the purpose of
reopening the evidence, recalling the witness and marking of a document.
2. The case of the Waqf Board is that the property belongs to the
Azhakarkulam Ahamath Shah Sahib Fakkir Dargah Pallivasal in
Aralikottai. It is their plea that they had surveyed the notified Waqf and
without the permission of the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board, the properties had
been alienated by the Muthawallis. Therefore, they sought for declaration
that the property had been endowed by the Raja of Sivagangai, in favour
of the religious institution and consequently, to declare that the sale deed
is contrary to Section 22-A of the Registration Act. Even in prayer No.(2)
of W.O.P.No.2 of 2012, the notification that had been issued by the
Government of Tamil Nadu in G.S.No.231(RMD) dated 22.04.1959 has
been referred.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD)Nos.996 of 2021, 429 & 434 of 2022
3. As per the scheme of the Waqf Act, which was in force in 1959,
a survey had to be conducted by the Survey Commissioner under Section
4. During the survey, he was entitled to examine witnesses for the
purpose of coming to a conclusion as to whether the property is a waqf
property or not. The document that has been sought to be filed by the
Waqf Board, which has been allowed by the learned Waqf Tribunal is a
statement that had been given by one Abdul Kadhar Sahibu to the
Assistant Commissioner of Waqfs, on 20.03.1956.
4. Heard Mr.K.Krishnan, the learned counsel for the petitioners
and Mr.Haja Mohideen Gisthi, the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent
and Mr.B.Tamilnidhi, learned Additional Government Pleader (CS) for
the respondents 29 to 32 in all the revisions. I have carefully gone
through the entire records.
5. It is the argument of Mr.K.Krishnan that the statement that had
been given to the Assistant Commissioner of Waqf requires registration as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD)Nos.996 of 2021, 429 & 434 of 2022
it is unregistered and unstamped and therefore, the same cannot be
received in evidence.
6. As seen from the Waqf Act, 1954, the Survey Commissioner had
the power of the Civil Court for summoning and examining the persons in
order to come to a conclusion as to whether the property is a waqf
property or not. The power of the Survey Commissioner to take up such
an endeavor has been settled by the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Board of Muslim Wakfs, Rajasthan vs. Radha Krishnan and others
(1979) 2 SCC 468. Therefore, the power of the Survey
Commissioner/Assistant Survey Commissioner to record the statements
from persons interested including Muthawallis is statutory in nature. It is
not a document written inter vivos and by which, title is transferred from
the Muthawalli in favour of the Government. All that the Survey
Commissioner does is to verify if a property is a waqf property or not and
if he comes to a conclusion that it is a waqf property, he would send a
report to the Government. On receipt of the report, the Government sends
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD)Nos.996 of 2021, 429 & 434 of 2022
the same to the Waqf Board. After receipt of the comments from the Waqf
Board, a notification is issued.
7. The 1st respondent in this case has merely attempted to produce
the statement that has been given to the Assistant Survey Commissioner.
Such a document does not come within the teeth of Section 17 of the
Registration Act or Section 35 of the Stamp Act. It is the statement made
by a person to an authority entitled to record the same. Whether it is
relevant to the case or not is not for the Waqf Tribunal to decide at the
time of disposal of the proceeding.
8. The learned Waqf Tribunal has exercised its discretion and
allowed the applications. While sitting under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, I cannot interfere with the order unless and until it
is capricious and arbitrary. As the sheet anchor of the case that the
document is hit by Section 17 of the Registration Act and Section 35 of
the Stamp Act fails, I cannot term the order to be arbitrary. Consequently,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD)Nos.996 of 2021, 429 & 434 of 2022
the Civil Revision Petitions fail. The Waqf Tribunal is requested to receive
the document, subject to relevancy and proof of the same. An opportunity
should be granted to the civil revision petitioners to cross-examine
the person producing the document on the contents thereof.
9. With the above observation, the Civil Revision Petition stands
dismissed. No costs. The Waqf Tribunal at Chennai is requested to
dispose of the case within a period of six months from the date on closure
of the evidence of P.W.1. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous
Petitions are closed.
17.08.2023
Index:Yes/No
Speaking Order :Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
kj
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD)Nos.996 of 2021, 429 & 434 of 2022
1.The Tahsildar
Tahsildar Office
Tirupathur.
2.The District Registrar
Sivagangai District.
3.The Sub-Registrar
Madhagupatti.
4.The District Collector
Sivagangai District.
5. The Waqf Tribunal at Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD)Nos.996 of 2021, 429 & 434 of 2022
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.
Kj
C.R.P.(PD)Nos.996 of 2021, 429 & 434 of 2022
and C.M.P.Nos.8016 of 2021, 2198 & 2218 of 2022
17.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
