SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(Mad) 919

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA
Syed Murtaza Basha
Versus
State Of Tamilnadu rep.by the Secretary & Others
W.P.No.22672 of 2011
Decided On : 22-02-2012

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:T. Velumani, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 to R3 - R. Ravichandran, A.G.P., R4 - V. Raghavachari, R5 – Prabakar, Advocates.

Competency of authorities to provide police protection and availability of alternative remedies for seeking relief.

Headnote:

Mandamus - Wakf Property Dispute - Wakf Act, 1995 - A.S.No.419 of 1924, W.E.A.No.6 of 2005, W.A.No.74 of 2009, W.O.P.No.9 of 2010, Crl.M.P.No.4292 of 2010, Crl.R.C.No.736 of 2011 - The court dismissed the writ petition seeking police protection for the discharge of the petitioner's duties as the Muthavalli of the Wakf and for protecting the Wakf properties from unlawful acts of the removed Muthavalli Syed Ghulam Mohideen. The court held that the respondents 2 and 3 were not competent authorities to provide police protection and that the petitioner had the remedy to register F.I.R. and approach the civil court for necessary relief.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought police protection for discharging duties as the Muthavalli of the Wakf and protecting Wakf properties from the removed Muthavalli's unlawful acts. The court dismissed the petition, stating that the respondents were not competent authorities to provide police protection.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the respondents 2 and 3 were not competent authorities to provide police protection and that the petitioner had alternative remedies such as registering F.I.R. and approaching the civil court for relief.

Issues: Competency of respondents 2 and 3 to provide police protection, availability of alternative remedies for the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondents 2 and 3 were not competent authorities to provide police protection and that the petitioner had alternative remedies such as registering F.I.R. and approaching the civil court for relief.

Final Decision: The writ petition seeking police protection was dismissed by the court.

Judgment :-

1. The Petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the Respondents 2 and 3 herein to provide adequate police protection for the discharge of the Petitioners duties, as the Muthavalli of the Hazarath Syed Sha Rahamathullah Sahib Wakf Thaikal Anaikaran Chathiram, as also for protecting the Cattle Chandy and other Wakf properties from unlawful acts of the removed Muthavalli Syed Ghulam mohideen.

2. The respondent No.2 and 3 to whom representation has been filed by the petitioner, are not competent authority to provide police protection. The respondents 2 and 3 can only register F.I.R. on a complaint, if cognizable offence is disclosed.

3. The stand of the State is that on the complaint filed by the petitioner, F.I.R. has been registered against the respondent No.4 & 5.

4. The affidavit filed in support of the writ petition reads as under:

I, Syed Murtaza Basha, Son of Syed Edullah Sahib, Muslim, aged about 55 years, residing at No.6A, Dargah Street, Tahikkal, A.K.Chatiram P.O., Kollidam, Nagapattinam District 609 102, and presently come down to Chennai, do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows:-

1) I submit that I am the petitioner hereby and I am acquainted with the facs of the case.

2) I submit that the "Hazrath Syed Shah Rahmathulla Wali Wakf" popularly known as "Pakkiri Thaikkal" situated at Thaikkal in Kollidam, Nagai District is Public Wakf and it is governed by the Scheme Decree in A.S.No.419 of 1924. As per the Scheme Decree, the ruleof succession to the Office of Muthavalli of the Wakf is Hereditary and the eledest male member of the family shall be entitled to function as Muthavallee of the Wakf.

3) I submit that the above Wakf is possessed with vast properties and the same are in encroachment by various encroachers. I submit that originally my father, Syed Eddullah Sahib was functioning as the Muthavalli of the Wakf till his life-time. After his life-time, my elder brother Mr.Syed Gulam Mohideen had succeeded to the post of Muthavalli and the said Syed Gulam Mohideen was functioning as Muthavalli of he Wakf.

4) I submit that I had filed an application before the 4th respondent viz., Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, for appointing me as the Muthavalli of the Wakf, since there were misdeeds committed by Mr.Syed Gulam Mohideen. The 4th respondent Wakf Board was pleased to enquire into the matter and as per order dated 22.04.1991, my brother Mr.Syed Ghulam Mohideen and myself were appointed as Joint Muthavallies of the Wakf for a period of one year and subsequently the same arrangement was confirmed by the Wakf Board.

5) I submit that inspite of the order passed by the 4th respondent wakf Board that myself and my brother will be the joint muthavallies of the wakf, my elder brother Syed Gulam Mohideen was dominating his position and has completely ousted me from performing the post of Joint Muthavalli and further he was thoroughly mismanaging the affairs of the Wakf by alienating the Wakf properties, creating unlawful encumbrances in respect of the Wakf properties and committed various acts of misfeasance and malfeasance and making personal gains out of the wakf properties. As such, in view of my elder brother Syed Gulam Mohideen's attitude and unlawful activities, which were detrimental to the interest of the wakf and such activities were unabated. I was constrained to prefer an application before the 4th respondent Wakf Board in W.E.A. No.6 of 2005 to remove my elder brother Syed Gulam Mohideen from the post of Muthavalli and appoint me as the sole Muthavalli. When the enquiry was pending before the Wakf board, my elder brother Mr.Syed Gulam Mohideen challenged the proceedings initiated by the Wakf Board before Hon'ble High Court, stating that the 4th respondent Wakf Board have no jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings and further contended that it is a private wakf (Wakf-al-aulad). This Hon'ble Court was pleased to give a direct















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top