Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, N.SENTHILKUMAR, JJ
Meer Hasanullah Sha Dargha – Appellant
Versus
Tamil Nadu State Wqkf Board, represented by Chief Executive Officer – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
The unsuccessful the Writ Petitioner has filed the present Writ Appeal challenging the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD)No. 9984 of 2014, dated 11.01.2019.
2.According to the appellant, the property in question is not a wakf property and hence, he filed a Wakf Original Petition before the Sub Court, Trichirappalli on Wakf O.P.No.4 of 2007 and on formation of State Wakf Tribunal at Chennai, it was transferred to the State Wakf Tribunal and it was renumbered as O.A.No.181 of 2020. In the meanwhile, the first respondent – Tamil Nadu State Wakf Board has appointed the respondents 3 and 4 herein as administrators of the property in question for the years 2014 – 2017 and they were functioning as administrators.
3.The appellant had challenged the said order, dated 18.02.2024 appointing nine persons, as President, two Vice Presidents, Member Secretary, Treasurer and the Members of the wakf. The appointment of said persons to administer the properties of wakf was for a period commencing from 30.01.2014 to 29.01.2017 on certain terms and conditions. Challenging the said appointment, the Writ Petition was filed. The Writ Court while dismis
The Wakf Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes regarding wakf properties, and the High Court should not interfere in such matters.
(1) In a Revision Petition scope of consideration is limited and judgment/order under challenge can be interfered only in event of there being perversity seen on face of order and if conclusion reach....
Important PointGrants by way of service inams for the purposes recognized by the muslim law as pious, religious or charitable would clothe the property with character of wakf.
The Wakf Tribunal's dismissal of the counterclaim was quashed, mandating reconsideration of property classification in compliance with registration provisions under the Wakf Act.
The jurisdiction for disputes concerning Wakf properties lies exclusively with the Wakf Tribunal, not civil courts, reinforcing the necessity for timely legal action under the WAKF ACT.
Valid Waqf claims must include specific property details in gazette notifications; failure on this point allows third-party rights. High Court preserves property rights despite Waqf claims.
The court confirmed that the presence of public offerings through hundiyals characterizes a Wakf as public, affirming the Wakf Board's jurisdiction despite claims of it being private.
The court asserted that ownership disputes under the Wakf Act do not preclude valid claims from individuals claiming title, regardless of Wakf notifications, provided they can substantiate their owne....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
