Madras High Court
The Secretary vs Sulthan Ibrahim ... 1St on 29 April, 2025
C.R.P.(MD)No.3223 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 29.04.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
C.R.P.(MD)No.3223 of 2024
and
C.M.P.(MD).No.18531 of 2024
The Secretary,
Jumma Thozhugai Pallivasal,
Samayanallur, Madurai. ... Petitioners / 1st Respondent /
Petitioner
Vs.
1.Sulthan Ibrahim ... 1st Respondent / Appellant /
Respondent
2.The Estate Officer / Chief Executive Officer,
Wakf House,
No.1, Jaffar Syrang Street,
Vallal Seethakathi Nagar,
Chennai - 600 001. ... 2nd Respondent / 2nd Respondent /
Presiding Officer
PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of Civil
Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 07.11.2021
and made in CMA No.44/22 on the file of the Principal District Judge,
Madurai, allowing the appeal and setting aside the order dated
06.09.2022 and made in Case No.PP.No.16/MDU/2021 on the file of the
1 / 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 01:18:45 pm )
C.R.P.(MD)No.3223 of 2024
Estate Officer under the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorized Occupants) Act 1975.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.A.Nassir Hussain
for Mr.I.Kowser Nissar
For Respondents : Mr.S.Ramesh - for R1
Mr.S.A.Ajmalkhan for R2
ORDER
This revision petition has been filed to set aside the judgment and
decree dated 07.11.2021 made in CMA No.44/22 on the file of the
Principal District Judge, Madurai, allowing the appeal and setting aside
the order dated 06.09.2022 made in Case No.PP.No.16/MDU/2021 on
the file of the Estate Officer under the Tamil Nadu Public Premises
(Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act 1975.
2. The facts in brief is that the revision petitioner herein namely
the Secretary, Jumma Thozhugai Pallivasal, Samayanallur, Madurai,
initiated proceedings under Section 4, 5 and 7 of Tamil Nadu Public
Premises Act, 1975 against the first respondent herein stating that the
property bearing D.No.1/526 in S.No.213/4, Samayanallur Village,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 01:18:45 pm )
belongs to the wakf represented by the Secretary. The Wakf is managed
by its committee approved by the Board. The respondent namely Sulthan
Ibrahim who is the first respondent herein is in unauthorized occupation
of the premises. He filed a suit in O.S.No.166 of 2001 before the District
Munsif Court, Madurai, stating that the property was belonged to his
father and right from 1996, he is conducting the business by paying the
rent. Later, he was served with notice by the Wakf to vacate the
premises and hand over the vacant possession. He further stated in the
suit that due to some dispute regarding the management of the Wakf,
they refused to receive the rent, hence the suit.
3. It was dismissed by the decree and judgment dated 06.03.2002.
The Wakf has filed W.O.P.No.10 of 2001 before the Wakf Tribunal,
Madurai for eviction. Later, it was not pressed on 22.12.2005. After that
the respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.140 of 2015 before the District
Munsif Court, Madurai, seeking injunction against the office bearers of
the Wakf and for other relief. The petitioner sent notice on 17.02.2020
terminating the tenancy. The first respondent received the notice. But
did not hand over the possession. Hence the petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 01:18:45 pm )
4. The first respondent appeared before the Estate Officer namely
the second respondent and filed the counter. After receiving the counter,
the matter was posted before the Estate Officer / the second respondent
for personal enquiry. Two issues were framed by the second respondent
and at the conclusion of the enquiry, the second respondent directed the
first respondent herein to vacate the premises within 30 days and to hand
over the vacant possession and consequent orders were passed in case of
non compliance. Against the second respondent order, the first
respondent preferred CMA(CS)No.44 of 2022 before the Principal
District Judge, Madurai, arraying the revision petitioner as first
respondent and the Estate Officer / second respondent. The appellate
authority allowed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, setting aside the order
passed by the second respondent on 06.09.2022. Against which this
Civil Revision Petition is preferred.
5. Heard both sides.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 01:18:45 pm )
6. The Civil Revision Petition is preferred mainly on the question
of legality of the order passed by the Appellate Authority. It is
contended by the revision petitioner before the appellate authority that in
pursuance of the order passed by the second respondent herein,
possession was taken over on 14.10.2022. So nothing survives for
adjudication in the appeal. A request was made by the first respondent to
restore possession. But that was rejected. It was challenged in CRP
(MD)No.2531 of 2022. It was dismissed on 13.02.2023.
7. Another turn took place in the form of the order passed by this
Court in W.P(MD)No.6667 of 2013, challenging the Amendment Act 33
of 2010 to the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized
Occupants) Act, 1975. The writ petition was allowed. The amendment
Act 33 of 2010 was struck off. On the basis of the above said judgment,
the appellate authority allowed the appeal filed by the first respondent.
8. It is further contended that the attempt made by the first
respondent that the disputed property does not belong to the Wakf, was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 01:18:45 pm )
rejected in O.A.No.64 of 2022 on 02.02.2024. Since, on the date of the
CMA order, property was already delivered to the revision petitioner, it
is not affected by the judgment of this Court in W.P(MD)No.6667 of
2013 dated 23.04.2024. Another contention is that the W.P(MD)No.
12628 of 2024 was filed by the first respondent herein challenging the
proceedings of the Estate Officer by relying upon the judgment passed in
W.P(MD)No.6667 of 2013, did not entertain the writ petition and
directed the first respondent to agitate the same before the appellate
authority in CMA(CS)No.44 of 2022.
9. In effect and in substance, the grounds in revision is that the
order passed by the writ Court in W.P(MD)No.6667 of 2013 is only
prospective and not retrospective. It will not affect the action which was
already taken and property was already delivered. The above said act
cannot be nullified retrospectively.
10. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would rely upon the
order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.
22568 of 2024 dated 03.10.2024, subsequent to the judgment in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 01:18:45 pm )
W.P(MD)No.6667 of 2013. He would rely upon the following
paragraph:
"6. The facts of the case is not in dispute. The only
contention of the petitioner is that the Waqf Board has no
power to invoke provision under Tamil Nadu Public Premises
(Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1975 and to
substantiate the same, learned counsel for the petitioner has
relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court
reported in 2024 SCC Online Mad 955. On the date when the
order came to be passed, the order of the Division Bench,
relied on by the respondents was not in existence. The said
order had come to be passed only on 23.04.2024. However,
the order of the respondents was passed way back on
22.11.2022 and pursuant to the said order, possession also
has been taken by the respondents on 13.07.2023. The
present writ petition has come to be filed only in the year
2024, much after possession was taken by the respondent. It
is to be pointed out that unless it is specifically stated by the
Courts, an order passed would act only prospectively and not
retrospectively. In the present case, the order having been
passed on 23.04.2024, operates prospectively and therefore,
it will not invalidate the order passed by the respondents on
22.11.2022. Therefore, the said order of the Division Bench
cannot be pressed into service in the present case. Hence, the
order passed by the second respondent in PP No.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 01:18:45 pm )
52/SLM/2021 dated 21.11.2022 does not warrant any
interference by this Court."
11. Per contra, learned counsel for the first respondent and the
second respondent would submit that when a particular Act is struck off
as un-constitutional, then it would take effect from the date of its birth.
It will have retrospective effect and whatever action that has been taken
will be illegal and void and for that purpose, they would rely upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant
Commissioner, Income Tax, Rajkot Vs Saurashtra Kutch Stock
Exchange Ltd., in Civil Appeal No.1171 of 2024 reported in (2008) 13
SCR 421. The relevant paragraph is as follows:
42. In our judgment, it is also well-settled that a
judicial decision acts retrospectively. According to
Blackstonian theory, it is not the function of the Court to
pronounce a 'new rule' but to maintain and expound the 'old
one'. In other words, Judges do not make law, they only
discover or find the correct law. The law has always been the
same. If a subsequent decision alters the earlier one, it (the
later decision) does not make new law. It only discovers the
correct principle of law which has to be applied
retrospectively. To put it differently, even where an earlier
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 01:18:45 pm )
decision of the Court operated for quite some time, the
decision rendered later on would have retrospective effect
clarifying the legal position which was earlier not correctly
understood.
12. He would further rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of P.V.George and Others Vs State of Kerala
and others reported in (2007) 3 SCC 557. According to the respondents,
the law declared by this Court will take retrospective operation since the
judgment of the Division Bench, the order passed in W.P.No.22568 of
2024, will have no effect and should not be followed.
13. On hearing both sides, this Court thought it fit to refer the
judgment of the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Crl.Appeal.No.377 of 2007 in the case of CBI Vs R.R.Kishore and the
constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Subramanian Swamy Vs Director, Central Bureau of Investigation
and another.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 01:18:45 pm )
14. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would draw the
attention of this Court to the following observation :
"28. The principles that can be deduced from the law laid
down by this Court, as referred to above, are :
I. A statue which is made by a competent
legislature is valid till it is declared unconstitutional by a
court of law.
II. After declaration of a statue as unconstitutional
by a court of law, it is non est for all purposes.
III. In declaration of the law, the doctrine of
prospective overruling can be applied by this Court to
save past transactions under earlier decisions
superseded or statutes held unconstitutional.
IV. Relief can be moulded by this Court in exercise
of its power under Article 142 of the Constitution,
notwithstanding the declaration of a statute as
unconstitutional.
15. He would submit that the amendment Act was held
unconstitutional on 23.04.2024. As mentioned above, the order of the
second respondent was put in execution and the property was delivered.
So there is no question of going back prior to the date of order by this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 01:18:45 pm )
Court on 23.04.2024 and nullify those acts which were already
completed.
16. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submit
that it cannot be taken as a complete act. It must be construed only as a
continuous process. So whatever action initiated and whatever order
passed is nullified because of the declaration by this Court. According to
him even though property was delivered, he is entitled to get the property
restored to him; the revision petitioner is not affected since he can invoke
fresh proceedings as per law.
17. But however, when the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has
passed an order directly on the point in WP(MD)No.22568 of 2024,
unless the respondent herein is able to convince this Court that the matter
requires for reference to the Larger Bench, I am of the considered view
that the order passed in WP(MD)No.22568 of 2024 must be followed in
this matter also, since I find no reason to differ from the view taken by
the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 01:18:45 pm )
18. Even on merits, the judgment of the appellate authority does
indicate that on behalf of the respondent, no document was produced to
say that the property belongs to some other persons but not to the
Pallivasal. It has been specifically stated by the respondent before the
appellate authority that the property belongs to Tamil Nadu Government
and not Pallivasal. But there is a clear finding by the Estate Officer that
the petition mentioned property belongs to the Jumma Thozhugai
Pallivasal Waqf, Samayanallur, Madurai, also entered into the
registration of Waqf. So the appellate authority also concluded that the
property belongs to the Wakf. Mainly, concentration was made upon the
jurisdiction of the Estate officer to pass the order of eviction. Even on
merits regarding the property, I find no valid reason to record a finding
that the property does not belong to the Wakf.
19. For the reasons stated above, this Civil Revision Petition is
liable to be allowed. Accordingly allowed. The judgment and decree
dated 07.11.2021 and made in CMA No.44/22 by the Principal District
Judge, Madurai, allowing the appeal, is set aside and the order dated
06.09.2022 and made in Case No.PP.No.16/MDU/2021 by the Estate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 01:18:45 pm )
Officer under the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized
Occupants) Act 1975, is restored. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition stands allowed. No costs.
29.04.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
pnn
To
1.The Principal District Judge, Madurai,
2.The Estate Officer / Chief Executive Officer,
Wakf House, No.1, Jaffar Syrang Street,
Vallal Seethakathi Nagar, Chennai - 600 001.
3.The Section Officer,
E.R.Section/V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 01:18:45 pm )
G.ILANGOVAN, J.
pnn
and
29.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 01:18:45 pm )
