Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 586
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G. RAJASURIA, J.
K. Maideen & Others
Versus
A. Bhava Nathar & Others
C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No. 2485 of 2012 & M.P(MD)Nos. 1 & 2 of 2012
Decided On : 28-01-2013
For the Petitioners:J. Bharathan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 & R2, R. Sundar, R3, K.K. Senthil, Advocates, R4, No appearance, R5 & R6 – Exparte.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the plenary powers of the Wakf Board under Sections 32 and 69 of the Wakf Act, 1995, for administering wakfs and the need for the Board to exercise its powers adequately in formulating a scheme for religious institutions.
Headnote:
Wakf Tribunal - Wakf Act, 1995 - Sections 32, 69 - The court discussed the legal provisions of Sections 32 and 69 of the Wakf Act, 1995, which vest the Wakf Board with plenary powers for administering and giving directions for the smooth running of wakfs. The court emphasized the need for the Wakf Board to exercise its powers adequately and formulate a scheme for the Pallivasal/Dharga, and appoint an interim administrator if necessary. The court refrained from remitting the matter back to the Wakf Tribunal, mandating the Wakf Board to carry out the process within six months.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the election of new committee members for a religious institution. The petitioners contended that the election conducted by the Wakf Board was illegal, irregular, and invalid, as it only considered the Muslims of a specific village, excluding others. The respondents argued that the election was conducted in accordance with customary practice and the directions of the Wakf Board.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the exparte order passed by the Wakf Tribunal was untenable and fell foul of legal standards. It emphasized the need for the Wakf Board to exercise its powers adequately and formulate a scheme for the religious institution, refraining from remitting the matter back to the Wakf Tribunal.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the election conducted by the Wakf Board, the absence of broad-based roving enquiry, and the powers of the Wakf Board under the Wakf Act, 1995.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Sections 32 and 69 of the Wakf Act, 1995, emphasizing the plenary powers of the Wakf Board for administering wakfs and the need for the Board to exercise its powers adequately in formulating a scheme for the religious institution.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was disposed of, mandating the Wakf Board to carry out the process within six months and refraining from remitting the matter back to the Wakf Tribunal.
1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to get set aside the fair and executable order dated 12.12.2011 passed in W.O.P.No.3 of 2008 by the Wakf Tribunal cum Principal Subordinate Judge, Thiruchirappalli.
2. Heard both sides.
3. A resume of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition would run thus:
The respondents 1 and 2 namely A.Bhava Nathar and A.Mohammed Sait in their representative capacity, as though representing the villagers of 23 villages, filed W.O.P.No.3 of 2008 as against the twelve alleged elected representatives of Thathaiyankarpettai village, with the following prayer:
"(a) for declaration that the notification issued by the respondents 1 & 2/Wakf Board vide its Proceedings Na.Ka.No.320/Trichy/Va.Ka./2005 dated 24.08.2007 for election of new committee members for Kadhar Oulia Pallivasal and Dharga to be held on 31.8.2007 in the said Pallivasal Premises before the officials of Wakf Board that too among Thathaiyangarpettai village Zamath alone and the election purported to have taken place on 31.8.2007 on the basis of the above impugned notification dated 24.8.2007 is illegal, irregular, invalid, ab initio void and unenforceable and as a consequential relief for a permanent injunction restraining the respondents 1 and 2, their subordinates etc., from either by recognizing or approving the respondents 3 to 11 as the newly elected members of the committee as per election purported to have taken place on 31.8.2007 or by allowing the respondents 3 to 11 to act as the office bearers of Kadhar Oulia Pallivasal and Dharga, Pillathurai, Thathaiyangarpettai, Musiri Taluk, Trichy District." (extracted as such)
However, the respondents remained exparte including the Wakf Board. Whereupon, the Court passed the exparte order by simply allowing the W.O.P.No.3 of 2008, after taking evidence on the side of the petitioners. Bhava Nathar, the first petitioner therein, was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.P.1 to P.8 were marked.
4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the respondents 3 to 6, 8, 9 and 11 in W.O.P.No.3 of 2008, filed this Civil Revision Petition on various grounds.
5. What I could understand and discern from the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and from the perusal of the records, is that there exists one Kadhar Oulia Pallivasal and Dharga, Pillathurai, Thathaiyangarpettai Village, Musiri Taluk, Trichy District. On the one hand, the petitioners in W.O.P.No.3 of 2008, would contend that it is the customary practice that the muslims of 23 villages found set out in the cause title are electing the members of the Managing Committee of the said Dharga. While so, holus-bolus, the Wakf Board attempted to conduct the election only taking into consideration the muslims of the said Thathaiyangarpettai village excluding the other villagers set out supra. Whereupon, the petitioners in the W.O.P.No.3 of 2008, approached this Court for redressal. However, this Court directed the petitioners in W.O.P.No.3 of 2008 to seek redressal before the Wakf Tribunal. Whereupon, the W.O.P.No.3 of 2008 was filed with the aforesaid prayer.
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners in W.O.P.No.3 of 2008/respondents 1 and 2 herein would advance his arguments that the twelve respondents including the Wakf Board in W.O.P.No.3 of 2008, did choose to remain absent, whereupon they were set exparte. Instead of getting the exparte order set aside, they did choose to file this statutory revision straightaway. In the absence of any counter affidavit as well as rebuttal evidence from the respondents' side in W.O.P.No.3 of 2008, the lower Court was justified in believing the case of the petitioners and in setting aside the alleged election of the respondents 3 to 12 therein as members constituting the Managing Committee of the said Pallivasal/Dharga. Those respondents therein, cannot try to capitalise their own negligence and try to get benefit by filing this Civil Rev
