The Wakf Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes regarding wakf properties, and the High Court should not interfere in such matters.

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 dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellant had taken note that the impugned order itself is for a period of three years from 30.01.2014 to 29.01.2017 and it has come to end.

4.Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned Counsel for the first and second respondents and the learned Counsel for the third and fourth respondents.

5.The learned Counsel for the appellant relied upon the following the judgments:

(1)The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case between Mohammed vs Mohammed Beke reported in 1997 (2) LW 120 (SC), had held as follows:

“It would thus be clear form the authorities cited above that the founder must declare his intention to dedicate the property for the mosque. A specific declaration is necessary. The founder must divest himself completely from the ownership of the property. The diversment can be inferred form the fact that he delivered possession to the Mutawali or an Imam of the mosque. If there is no actual delivery of the possession, the mere fact that members of the Mohammedan public are permitted to offer prayers with azan and ikamat does not make the wakf complete and irrevocable. The founder must also make some sort of way which may be used by the public to enter the mosque. From the facts it is seen that the property was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the father during his life time enjoying the usufruct thereof. There was no dedication and public was not allowed to have any prayers on the property as mosque: nor the public had access to it. During the life time of the father himself, the appellant had cancelled the deed. Under these circumstances, the necessary tests laid sown by this Court have not been satisfied to conclude that a wakf has been created in respect of the above properties.”

(2)The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case between Mohamed Khasim vs Mohamed Dastagir and others reported in (2006) 13 SCC 497, had held as follows:

“29.A plain reading of the document dated 29-2-1960 indicates that Mohd. Imam Saheb had intended that his properties, both movable and immovable, should remain intact for the objects indicated in the deed. It is also clear from the recitals in the deed that he did not want his estate to be alienated by any of the trustees who would be in management, by reserving the power of alienation only to himself and that too for buying other properties which were to vest in the trust. The objects for which the income from the properties were to be expended are mostly of a pious and religious nature. According to Mohammedan jurists, the term “wakf” literally means dedication or as noted by Mulla in his Principles of Mohammedan Law, the permanent dedication by a person professing the Mussalman faith of any property for any purpose recognised by Mussalman law as religious, pious or ch