The court emphasized the requirement for all mutawallis to sign a lease deed and the prohibition of leases exceeding three years under the Wakf Act. The court also highlighted the responsibility of the Wakf Board to act in accordance with the law and not to favor one party over the other.

This writ petition has been filed by two Mutawallis of the petitioner Dharga situated at Panruti Town. They claim to be hereditary Mutawallis. The Dharga owns about 1.19 acres of land and in a portion of the said extent, there are shops. According to the petitioners, respondents-2 to 6 are encroachers, falsely claiming to be Members of a Jamath Committee. The respondents claim to have obtained lease from one of the petitioner mutawallis/Heeralal. They had obtained a document from Heeralal by fraud and deception and had committed criminal trespass on a portion of the Dharga premises on 8.3.1992. This was informed to the police earlier as well as to the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board. A report dated 17.3.1992 had been sent to the Board.

2. W.P.No.6440 of 1992 was earlier filed by the Dharga, praying for a direction to the Wakf Board to remove the encroachments by the said respondents and to proceed against Heeralal for acting against the interests of the Dharga and to direct the Board to prevent the said encroachers from interfering with the administration of the Dharga. Learned single Judge, while disposing of the writ petition, by order dated 23.3.1998, took note of the fact that the Wakf Board was remaining silent though repeated complaints have been made and directed the Board to take up the complaint, to issue notice to the respondents and to pass orders on or before 30.10.1998. While ordering so, the learned Judge also observed that under Section 54 of the Wakf Act, 1995, it was the duty of the Wakf Board, if there was a prima facie case, to issue notice to the encroachers and to take action for the removal of the encroachment and that the Act gave summary powers to take action.

3. The then Chairman of the Board, by order dated 26.2.1999, rejected the prayer for removal of encroachment and it is as against the said order, this writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the same and to direct the Board to remove the encroachment by respondents-2 to 6. The petitioners contend that Heeralal being only one of the trustees, had no power to execute the lease without the consent and authority of the other Mutawallis. Even if the lease was valid, it was only for a period of eleven months. The Wakf Board had erroneously interpreted the lease as a permanent lease, whereas, no mutawalli had any power to grant a permanent lease in favour of anyone. The Board had not properly appreciated that the Dharga was a private wakf. Dharga had filed O.S.No.90 of 1982 on the file of the Sub Court, Cuddalore, for a declaration that the Dharga was a private Wakf and that they were the hereditary mutawallis and to restrain the Board from interfering with the management and administration of the Dharga. Though they had succeeded in the suit, the appeal filed by the Wakf Board was allowed by the appellate Court and now, the proceeding was pending before this Court in S.A.No.641 of 1996. According to the petitioner, because of the proceedings initiated by the petitioner, the then Chairman was prejudiced against the petitioners.

4. In the counter affidavit filed by the Secretary of the Board, after denying the various contentions in the affidavit, the Board contended that in their enquiry, it was found that in order to safeguard the sanctity of the Dharga, to utilise the vacant portion of the land and also to prevent anti-social elements from creating problems, a Jamath of the town wanted to construct a Mosque and that the Jamath people had entered into an agreement with one of the Mutawallis agreeing to construct a mosque and that the lease should be for a period of eleven months for the specific purpose of construction. But the purpose of the lease was really a permanent lease. The entry of the Jamath was perfectly legal and the petitioners' claim for hereditary trusteeship was pending for consideration in S.A.No.641 of 1996.

5. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents-2 to 6 they contended that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. T