Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 16642
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mr.Justice V.Lakshminarayanan, J
G.Syed Akbar Hasan – Appellant
Versus
The District Collector – Respondent
W.P.(MD) Nos.23489 & 23541 of 2024
Mrs.A.Ajimath Begum, Mr.Kishore Ram, for Mr.S.Venkatesh, Mr.G.Suryananth, Addl. Govt. Pleader, Mr.D.S.Haroon Rasheed, Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, Addl.Govt. Pleader
Waqf properties cannot be alienated post-amendment, rendering any such transactions void ab initio under the Waqf Act.
Headnote:(A) Waqf Act, 1995 - Sections 51(1)(A) and 104A - Writ petitions concerning the validity of an exchange deed involving waqf properties - The court emphasized that waqf properties cannot be alienated post-amendment, declaring the exchange deed void ab initio. (Paras 12, 14)
(B) Fiduciary Duty - The court noted the failure of the Waqf Board and Trustees to protect waqf properties, highlighting the need for accountability. (Paras 15, 19)
Facts of the case:
The case involves a resolution by the Dargah Committee to exchange waqf properties for constructing 'Yatri Nivas', which was executed despite the petitioner being a party to the resolution. The petitioner later challenged the validity of the exchange deed, claiming it was fraudulent. (Paras 6, 9)
Findings of Court:
The exchange deed was declared null and void, and directions were issued to restore the status quo ante regarding the waqf properties. (Paras 14, 20)
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the exchange deed and the responsibilities of the Waqf Board and Trustees in managing waqf properties. (Paras 12, 15)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Waqf Act prohibits the alienation of waqf properties, and any such transaction is void ab initio, reinforcing the fiduciary duties of the Trustees and the supervisory role of the Waqf Board. (Paras 12, 14)
Result: W.P.(MD).No.23489 of 2024 is allowed; W.P.(MD).No.23541 of 2024 is dismissed.
ORDER
Both these Writ Petitions have been clubbed together pursuant to the orders of the Hon'ble Administrative Judge, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court. For the purpose of this judgment, W.P.(MD) No.23489 of 2024 shall be treated as the lead case and the parties will be referred as per their rank in that writ petition.
2. These two Writ Petitions represent an unfortunate situation of the fence eating the crop. The Tamil Nadu Waqf Board, which is supposed to to ensure that Muthavallis, Committees and Trustees act in accordance with the Waqf Nama/Scheme Decree, governing the institution, and the School of Islam, to which the institution belongs, has been equally oblivious of its duty to protect the properties belonging to Waqf.
3. There exists in the town of Tiruchirapalli a world renowned Dargah under the name and style ''Thable Alam Nathar Vali Dargah and Pallivasal''. This is a surveyed and notified waqf. Even when this country was being ruled by colonialists, the Civil Courts thought it fit to frame a scheme, in exercise of the powers vested in the Courts, under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A scheme decree was framed on 29.01.1930 by the learned Subordinate Judge at Tiruchirapalli. This shows the waqf is a public waqf.
4. The details, which are necessary for disposal of this case, are : the Dargah was endowed with the properties in Survey Nos.54/2, 54/4, 92/2, 991, 108/2, 108/5, 121/1B, 109/2, 65, 66/A5, 81/2 and 81/3, measuring an extent of 9.85 acres, situated in Panayakkurichi Village, Thiruverumbur Taluk, Trichy District. The management of the Dargah consists of three kinds of Trustees, namely, Public Trustee, Pangali Trustee and Hereditary Trustee. From amongst the three Trustees, a person is elected as Executive Trustee, who is responsible for the day-to-day administration of the Dargah.
5. On 09.02.2019, the five Trustees met at the premises of the Dargah and passed several resolutions. The resolution, that is relevant for this case, is, Resolution No.5, which is extracted as under :
6. The gist of this resolution is that the 'Dargah Committee' wanted to construct ''Yatri Nivas'' for the devotees and the faithful, who come to pray at the Dargah and Mosque. The trigger for this resolution is that the then Hon'ble Minister, Department of Tourism, Government of Tamil Nadu, had given an assurance to the Darga Committee that if the Committee identifies a suitable land for construction of Yatri Nivas, the Government would build the same free of cost. The Committee, referring to this assurance given by the Hon'ble Minister, passed a resolution, enabling the Executive Trustee to execute an exchange deed for the properties belonging to respondents No.6 and 7 in the lead case.
7. I should immediately note, the writ petitioner, who is a Hereditary Trustee, was a party to this resolution. The minutes of the meeting do not reveal the petitioner of having protested against the resolution No.5. The records produced by the petitioner show that he raised an objection regarding the resolution and registration of the exchange deed only on 15.06.2020 and filed a writ petition before this court in W.P.(MD) No.14003 of 2022 in the year 2022. I am referring to this aspect of this case to point out the writ petitioner, though a whistle-blower, his conduct is not free from blemish. The reason, I am recording this finding, will be known at the time of conclusion of the judgment. If I merely find a blemish with the petitioner, it would not do justice to the case.
8. On the strength of the resolution on 09.02.2019, the Executive Trustee executed an exchange deed on 27.02.2019 in Document No. 1999/2019 and had it registered on the file of the fourth respondent. The properties, which have been set forth above, were exchanged for the properties in Survey Nos.1504 and 1504/1, situated in Old Municipal Road, Nathersha Pallivasal, Tiruchirapalli.
9. Subsequently, the petitioner approached the District Registrar, Tiruchirapalli, to cancel the ex
