IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02.04.2024 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE Mrs.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN W.P.No.20459 of 2020 & W.M.P.No.25236 of 2020 Ezhilrani ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Tamilnadu Wakf Board rep. By its Chairman, No.1,Jaffer Syrang Street, Mannady, Chennai – 1

2. Thattanchavady Masjira Mubarakka rep. By its Muttawalli, Thattanchavadt, Panruti, Cuddalore District

3. Thattanchavady Masjira Mubarakka rep. By its Secretary Thattanchavady, Panruti Cuddalore District

4. Thiyagarajan

4th respondent impleaded vide order dated

02.04.2024 in W.M.P.No.1150 of 2021 ...Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 15.12.2020 and pass orders.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Siddiq For Respondents : Mr.Haja Mohideen Gisthi for R1 to R3 Mr.S.K.Chandrakumar for R4

O R D E R

The present Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation dated

15.12.2020.

2. The brief facts of the case as averred by the petitioner is as follows:-

(i) The petitioner is the resident of the subject property for several years. The said land belongs to Thattanchavady Masjira Mubarrakka and the petitioner's husband was given leasehold right to the landed property to an extent of 0.58.0 hectares comprised in S.No.112/1A situated at Anguchettypalayam village, Pudupettai, Cuddalore District by a lease deed dated 19.09.1998.

(ii) Further, the petitioner's husband made an arrangment to each of his family to enjoy half of the leasehold lands and in this regard, the petitioner's husband has given a written consent letter in favour of the petitioner on 03.04.2009, despite of the same, the 4^th respondent obtained lease agreement from Thattanchavady Masjira Mubarakka for the entire lands and when it was questioned, the 4^th respondent informed that separate lease agreement would be given after some time, but so far the same is not materialized.

(iii) Further, the 4^th respondent started giving all sorts of troubles to grab the entire leasehold property and therefore, police complaints have been preferred by the petitioner, but there was no response and the police authorities have advised to the 4^th respondent. However, the 4^th respondent tried to assault the petitioner and dispossess the petitioner from the half portion of the leasehold lands and the same was resisted. Therefore, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.106 of 2020 for bare injunction and another suit in O.S.No.34 of 2019 for default of payment of rent by the 4^th respondent. Further, a written representation was submitted to the respondents in-person on 15.12.2020 requesting them not to grant leasehold right to the said Thiyagarajan with respect to the entire extent of 0.58.0 hectares as the petitioner's request to issue separate leasehold right to half portion of the said lands in her favour is pending for long time.

However, the same has not been considered, hence this petition.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 submits that the Thattanchavady Masjid E Mubarakka, is an unregistered Wakf, even if the Waqf is unregistered, the provisions of the Waqf Act applies as reflected in Judgment dated 16.10.2015 in W.P.(MD) No.10408 of 2015, which states that “Whether a Waqf is registered or unregistered is totally immaterial to apply the provisions of the Waqf Act, since the provisions of the Waqf Act will appy to all the Waqfs whether it is registered or unregistered.

4. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents

1 to 3 that no person can occupy and claim right over the Wakf property without valid lease deed and any person occupying the property without a valid lease deed is an unauthorised occupant of the said property and he is liable to be vacated and handover the possession to the Wakf. As per Section 56 of the Wakf Act, 1995, there is a restriction on grant of lease.

5. Further, the learned