Waqf Board must adhere to historical management schemes; unauthorized trustee appointments violate established law and require urgent electoral resolution.

ORDER :

P.B. Balaji, J.

The revision is directed against the order of the Tamil Nadu Waqf Tribunal, Chennai made in O.A. No. 41 of 2023. Along with the present revision, Miscellaneous Petition has also been taken out in C.M.P. No. 16746 of 2025, for realising the hundial collection amounting to Rs.12,30,819/- over the period of 2019 to 2022 and further accumulating hundial collections to the petitioners, pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petition.

2. I have heard Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.M.J.Jaseem Mohamed, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and Mr.C.Shankar, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2. Mr.N.A.Nissar Ahmed, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.Nassir Hussain, learned counsel respondents 3 and 4.

3. Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the dispute pertains to a surveyed waqf under Section 4 of the Waqf Act of 1954, by name Hazrath Syed Moosa Shakhaderi Dargah, which is now popularly known as Mount Road Dargah. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that O.A. No. 41 of 2023 was filed by the revision petitioners under Section 83(1) and 83(2) of the Waqf Act 1995. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that the subject waqf is a surveyed and notified waqf and as early as in 1910, in C.S. No. 116 of 1909, this Court granted a scheme decree. The appeal challenging this decree of the Single Judge was confirmed by the Division Bench on 16.09.1912. The issue regarding the parties being governed by the scheme decree came up for consideration yet again in W.P. No. 5418 of 1991 and W.A. No. 522 of 1994 and the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court held that the scheme decree passed by this Court in C.S. No. 116 of 1909 would govern the parties and any disputes between the parties shall be settled only in accordance of the scheme decree.

4. In and by proceedings of the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board dated 10.01.1991, the board removed the then Mutawalli. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No. 3160 of 1983 also found that the scheme had been drawn for collecting and receiving the offerings and held that Syed Moosa Sahib was entitled to one half and Syed Gaffar Sahib and Syed Moideen Sahib were entitled to the other half of the hundial collections, offerings, gifts and other emoluments. It is the categorical case of the learned Senior Counsel, Mr.S.Parthasarathy that after the scheme decree, the Board never sought for modification of the scheme at any point of time and rightly so, since the Board does not have the jurisdiction to interfere with the scheme of management framed by this Court.

5. He would however state that the descendants of Syed Moosa Sahib and Syed Gaffar Sahib and Syed Moideen Sahib were turn holding trustees/mujawars, managing the affairs of the Dargah and collecting and receiving the offerings, taking turns according to their respective shares for the past 100 years and more.

6. The learned Senior Counsel would also invite my attention to the fact that the father of the first petitioner and maternal grandfather of the petitioners 2 and 3, Janab Mohamed Zainulabudeen filed a suit in O. S. No. 3696 of 1972 against Syed Mohiuddin and others claiming his share as a turn holding trustee/Mujawar. The City Civil Court decreed the suit on 12.09.1975 and the appeal preferred by Syed Ahmed Mohideen and others in A.S. No.19 of 1980 was also dismissed on 12.12.1980. However, in S.A.Nos.650 and 894 of 1981, by judgement and decree dated 17.11.1981, this Court set aside the concurrent findings of the Courts below. The father of the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in C.A