C O M M O N O R D E R

In W.P(MD)No.10443 of 2010, the petitioner has challenged the impugned communication dated 03.10.2007 of the first respondent addressed to the fourth respondent to not to register any sale deed in respect of the subject property.

2. In W.P(MD)No.10444 of 2010, the petitioner has challenged the impugned communication, dated 10.12.2009 of the first respondent directing the fifth respondent to not to give any planning permission to the petitioner to put up any construction.

3. The case of the petitioner is that petitioner purchased the subject property on 20.04.2007. It is further the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser of the property. The property in question was earlier alienated wayback on 25.09.1932 and thereafter, subsequent transfers took place on 10.05.1957 and thereafter on

01.08.1967 and finally to the petitioner's vendor on 04.07.1970.

4. It is submitted that the second respondent had filed a suit in O.S.No.1042 of 1967 on 20.11.1967 for a recovery of possession. Subsequently, an E.P. was also filed in E.P.No.22 of 1976. However, only a paper delivery was taken on 22.06.1976. It is submitted that the attempt of the first respondent to stop further alienation and registration by directing the fourth respondent sub-registrar and the fifth respondent Commissioner of Dindigul, to not to register any sale deed and/or not to give planning permission long after the transactions from 1932 up to 2007, covering five different sale deeds as mentioned above is contrary to the law of limitation under the Limitation Act, 1963.

5. It is submitted that an identical issue came up consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.Kaliamurthi and another Vs. Five Gori Thaikal Wakf and others, 2008 (9) SCC, 306. A specific reference was made to Paragraph Nos.20, 21 and 22 from the said decision. It is therefore submitted that the impugned notices, dated 03.10.2007 and 10.12.2007 of the first respondent restraining the petitioner from indirectly selling the property or developing the property are liable to be quashed.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has been in continuous enjoyment and possession of the property since 2007 and therefore the attempt of the first respondent in terms of the impugned notices, dated 03.10.2007 and 10.12.2009 deserves to be interfered.

7. Opposing the prayer, the learned counsel for the first respondent submits that not only the subject property was recovered pursuant to a judgment and decree, dated 20.11.1967 in O.S.No.1042 of 1967 but also the recovery of the property was recorded on 22.06.1976 in E.P.No.22 of 1976. It is submitted that the subject property forms part of the Wakf Register right from the inception at the time when the Wakf Act, 1954 was in force and before 1954 under the old Mussalman Wakf Act, 1923.

8. The learned counsel for the first respondent has drawn attention to Gazette Notification, dated 16.07.1959 to show the property in Survey No.358 was included in the Property Register of the Wakf. It is submitted that the property belongs to the second respondent Wakf as per the Wakf Register. It is therefore submitted that it is clear that once the property belongs to a Wakf, it will always remain as a property of the Wakf unless transferred by the Wakf.

9. The learned counsel for the first respondent submits that Section

53 of the Wakf Act, 1954 prohibited alienation of property without sanction of the Board and that all alienations were void. It is submitted that a similar provision existed in the later Act. It is therefore submitted that the sale in favour of the petitioner by the petitioner's vendor on 20.04.2007 was void. It is submitted that the Board can also send a requisition to the collector to take re-delivery of the Wakf property. 10. The learned counsel for the first respondent further submits that if the petitioner wants to establish rights over the property, the petitioner has an alternate r