IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
THE HON'BLE MR. SANJAY V. GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE, THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
Mohmood Hussain - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Namakkal Kavignar Maaligai, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009 and Ors. - Respondents
W.P.Nos.20553, 22931 of 2023; 6667 of 2013; 6561, 6767 of 2022; 1568 and 8121 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.6669, 6680, 6681, 6846, 6847, 6849 of 2022; 22429, 22431, 19935 of 2023; 1592 and 9068 of 2024 and W.A.Nos.2865, 2070, 2074, 2076, 2078, 2109, 2195, 2289, 2290 of 2023; 820 and 944 of 2024 and C.M.P.Nos.23809, 17654, 17681, 17706, 17712, 17710, 17984, 17982, 18940, 18941, 19667, 19665, 19670, 19672 of 2023; 6734, 6736, 5659 and 5661 of 2024
Decided On : 23-04-2024
ORDER :
(D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.)
(Prayer in W.P.No.20553 of 2023: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of declaration declaring that Tamil Nadu State Act, Act 33 of 2010 is repugnant to the Waqf Act, 1995, as amendment by Act, 2013 (Act 27 of 2013) and void.)
A. THE WRIT PETITIONS/WRIT APPEALS:
All these writ petitions are with a prayer to declare the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Amendment Act (Act No.33 of 2010) as void, ultra vires the Constitution, being repugnant to the Waqf Act, 1995, as amended by the Act No.27 of 2023. The writ appeals are filed to set aside the common order dated 03.07.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.17331, 13506, 13510, 13514, 144224, 14426, 14428, 14432, 16963, 17164, 17399, 17371, 18475 and 18479 of 2023.
1.1 All these petitioners and appellants are either tenants whose lease has expired/determined or are treated as encroachers in respect of the properties/premises belonging to the Waqf.
B. THE STATUTORY FRAMEWORK:
2. The Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1975 (Act 1 of 1976) was enacted by the State of Tamil Nadu and it also received the assent of the President on 3rd January, 1976. The Act is to provide for eviction of unauthorised occupants from public premises and for matters incidental thereto. Section 2(d) defines “premises” as follows:
(i) gardens, grounds and outhouses, if any, appertaining to such building or hut or part of a building or hut; and
(ii) any fittings affixed to such building or hut or part of a building or hut for the more beneficial enjoyment thereof.”
2.1 Section 2(e) originally defined “public premises” as follows: “2(e) “public premises” means any premises belonging to or taken on lease or requisitioned by, or on behalf of, the Government, and includes –
(i) any company as defined in section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Central Act 1 of 1956) in which not less than fifty-one per cent of the paid up share capital is held by the Government; and
(ii) any corporation (not being a company as defined in section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Central Act 1 of 1956) or a local authority) established by or under any law and owned or controlled by the Government; and
(2) any premises belonging to, or vested in, a local authority or any Board constituted under any law.”
2.2 Section 3 enables the Government by notification to appoint Estate Officers. Section 4 enables the Estate Officer, if he is of the opinion that any person is in unauthorised occupation of any public premises and that they should be evicted, to issue a notice in writing and, thereafter, pass an order under Section 5 ordering eviction of the unauthorised occupants. An appeal is provided to the District Judge under Section 9 of the Act as against the order of eviction. Section 15 of the Act bars the jurisdiction of a civil court to entertain any proceeding in respect of eviction of unauthorised persons under the Act. Under Section 20, the State Government is also vested with the powers to frame rules to carry out the purposes of the Act.
(II) THE WAQF ACT, 1995:
3. In the year 1995, the Parliament enacted the Waqf Act, 1995 (Act No.43 of 1995), [for short, “the Waqf Act, 1995”] which is to provide for the better administration of the Waqf and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The said Act repealed the Waqf Act, 1954 (Act No.29 of 1954), as amended, while saving the actions taken under the erstwhile Act. The Act defines “waqf” under Section 3(r) as follows:
(i) a waqf by user but such waqf shall not cease to be a waqf
Ashoka Marketing Limited and another v. Punjab National Bank and others
Bondu Ramaswamy and others v. Bangalore Development Authority and others
Dharam Dutt and others v. Union of India and others
Dwarkadas Shrinivas of Bombay v. Sholapur Spinning and Weaving Company Limited and others
Forum for People's Collective Efforts (FPCE) and another v. State of West Bengal and another
G.L. Batra v. State of Haryana
G.Mohan Rao and others v. State of Tamil Nadu and others
Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Limited and others v. State of Bihar and others
Indu Bhushan Bose v. Rama Sundari Debi and another
Jai Singh Jairam Tyagi v. Mamanchand Ratilal Agarwal
Innoventive Industries Limited v. ICICI Bank and others
Jay Engineering Works Limited v. Industry Facilitation Council and another
K.T.Plantation Private Limited and others v. State of Karnataka
Kaiser-I-Hind (P) Ltd. v. National Textile Corpn. (Maharashtra North) Ltd.
Katragadda Virayya v. Katragadda Venkata Subbayya
L.S.Nair v. Hindustan Steel Limited, Bhilal and others
M.Karunanidhi v. Union of India and another
Madras Bar Assn. v. Union of India
Manganlal Chhaganlal Private Limited v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and others
Naga People's Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others
Offshore Holdings Private Limited v. Bangalore Development Authority
Pandia Nadar and others v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others (1974) 2 SCC 539
Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax
Power Machines India Limited v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others
R.S.Joshi, Sales Tax Officer, Gujarad and others v. Ajit Mills Limited and another
Raja Bhairebendra Narayan Bhup v. State of Assam
Rajendra Diwan Vs. Pradeep Kumar Ranibala
Rajiv Sarin and others v. State of Uttarakhand and others
Ram Krishan Grover and others -Vs- Union of India and others 2020 12 SCC 506
Rashid Wali Beg v. Farid Pindari and others
Shah Faesal and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Anr.
Sri Sri Sri K.C.Gajapathi Narayan Deo v. State of Orissa
State of Bihar and another v. Kedar Sao and another
State of Kerala and another v. Peoples Union for Civil Liberties, Kerala State Unit and others
State of Kerala and others v. Mar Appraem Kuri Company Limited and others
State of Maharastra v. Kamal Sukumar Durgule and others
Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhatija v. Collector, Thane
Tribhovandas Purshottamdas Thakkar v. Ratilal Motilal Patel
Union of India v. Dhanwanti Devi
Union of India v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd.
Union of India v. Madras Bar Assn.
Vijaya Kumar Sharma and others v. State of Karnataka and others
The Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Amendment Act, 2010 is repugnant to the Waqf Act, 1995, rendering it void and ultra vires the Constitution due to conflicting provi....
The presumption of constitutionality and the necessity of challenging legislation in a properly constituted writ petition.
Point of Law : The definition of the word ‘encroachment' under Section 54 of the Wakf Act and in para.7 to 12 defined the word ‘encroacher' and the power of Wakf Board under Section 54 of the Wakf Ac....
(1) Jurisdiction of Wakf Tribunal – Injunction simpliciter sought for before Tribunal does not fall within its jurisdiction and plaint has to be rejected.(2) An Amendment will be retrospective only ....
The Waqf Act empowers the Chief Executive Officer to address encroachments on Waqf properties, with exclusive jurisdiction for related disputes resting with Waqf tribunals.
The Waqf Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes involving Waqf properties, including tenant eviction, as per the amended Waqf Act, overriding state tenancy laws.
Point of Law : Due process need not mean only an active process initiated by the owner of the property.
(1) Suit for permanent injunction in respect of Waqf property is maintainable before Waqf Tribunal.(2) Waqf Tribunal shall be deemed to be a Civil Court and shall have same powers as may be exercised....
Wakf Property – Eviction of tenant - under Section 83(1), the Tribunal had no power to entertain a suit of eviction.
The main legal principle established is that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, Revenue Court, and other authorities in respect of any dispute relating to a waqf property is barred by Section 85 of....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.