Madras High Court
S.M.M.Anwar Ali vs Fathima Nachiyar on 26 July, 2023
W.A.No.2947 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26.07.2023
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
W.A.No.2947 of 2019
S.M.M.Anwar Ali .. Appellant
v.
1. Fathima Nachiyar
Hereditary Muthavalli
Shavilajat Fakir Dargah Wakf
Pallipadi, Chidambaram
Cuddalore District
2. Tamil Nadu Wakf Board
represented by its Chief Executive Officer
3, Vallal Seethakathi Nagar
Chennai 600 001
3. The District Revenue Officer
Chidambaram
Cuddalore District
4. Mohammed Salim
S/o Rohaya Bee
____________
Page 1 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2947 of 2019
5. Gunasekar
S/o Sengeni .. Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the
order dated 02.02.2017 made in W.P.No.2566 of 2017.
For Appellant :: Mr.A.Raja Mohamed
For Respondents :: Mr.P.Ayyaswamy for R1
Mr.Haja Mohideen Gisthi for R2
Mr.U.M.Ravichandran
Special Government Pleader for R3
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by D.KRISHNAKUMAR,J.)
On the ground that the first respondent/writ petitioner has obtained an
order from the writ Court without arraying the appellant as a necessary party
in the said proceedings, this intra-Court appeal has been filed.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the
appellant is presently enjoying the property in Survey No.78/2 to an extent
of 0.50 cents situated at Pallipadai village, Chidambaram Taluk on the
strength of the title deed and ryotwari patta issued in his name and that his
family members have been in possession of the said property continuously
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2947 of 2019
for more than 68 years without any encumbrance. The aforesaid enjoyment
of the property by the appellant has neither been disclosed nor the appellant
has been arrayed as a party in the writ petition filed by the first
respondent/writ petitioner. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the
appellant should be given an opportunity to put forth his case before the
authorities.
3. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the respondents
and also perused the order passed by the writ Court.
4. Since we find that the dispute is regarding the enjoyment/ownership
of the property in question and it is the claim of the appellant that the order
has been obtained by the writ petitioner behind his back prejudicing his
rights, we deem it appropriate to direct the first respondent to make a fresh
representation to the third respondent enclosing the copies of the
representations dated 26.02.2016 and 02.04.2016, within a period of three
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such
representation from the first respondent, the third respondent is further
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2947 of 2019
directed to serve notice to all the interested parties including the appellant
and thereafter pass appropriate orders on its own merits and in accordance
with law as expeditiously as possible, but not later than 12 weeks from the
date of receipt of such representation from the first respondent.
5. With the above direction, the order passed by the writ Court stands
modified and the writ appeal stands partly allowed. Consequently,
C.M.P.No.19164 of 2019 is closed. There is no order as to costs.
(D.K.K.,J.) (P.B.B,J.)
Index : yes/no 26.07.2023
Neutral citation : yes/no
ss
To
1. The Chief Executive Officer
Tamil Nadu Wakf Board
3, Vallal Seethakathi Nagar
Chennai 600 001
2. The District Revenue Officer
Chidambaram, Cuddalore District
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2947 of 2019
D.KRISHNAKUMAR,J.
AND
P.B.BALAJI,J.
ss
W.A.No.2947 of 2019
26.07.2023
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
