Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 31587
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
,
Petitioner – Appellant
Versus
1st respondent – Respondent
Writ Petition
For the Appellants/Petitioners:
For the Respondents:
Under Muslim Law and the Wakf Act, a property dedicated for religious purposes becomes a Wakf subject to Wakf Board supervision, negating the concept of private Wakfs except Wakf al al-Aulad.
Headnote:(A) Wakf Act, Sections 3(r), 61, 71 - Supervisory jurisdiction of Wakf Board over Wakfs - Whether Wakf can be private or public - Muslim Law regarding dedication of property to God. (Paras 4, 10, 18, 21, 22)
(B) Under Muslim Law, once a property is dedicated to God for religious purposes, it becomes a Wakf and shall not return to the owner, negating the concept of a private mosque or Wakf. (Para 18)
Facts of the case:
This writ petition was filed seeking direction for enquiry into alleged mismanagement of funds of Sayeedani Bi Dargah, a notified Wakf, which is administered by a hereditary Mutawalli. The petitioner, a worshipper, alleged mismanagement and sought intervention of Wakf Board. The 2nd respondent contested jurisdiction, claiming the Wakf as private and resisted enquiry pending civil suits about management and administration.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that because the Dargah receives offerings from the general public through hundiyals, it prima facie constitutes a public Wakf under Section 3(r) of the Wakf Act. The definition in the Act does not recognize private Wakfs except for Wakf al al-Aulad reserved for descendants. The supervisory jurisdiction of the Wakf Board extends to all notified Wakfs regardless of registration status. The alleged mismanagement allegations fall within the Board's jurisdiction to enquire under Section 71.
Issues: Whether the subject Wakf/Dargah is a public or private Wakf; and whether the Wakf Board has jurisdiction to enquire into allegations of mismanagement.
Ratio Decidendi: Property dedicated for religious purposes under Muslim Law becomes a Wakf and vests in God, extinguishing owner's rights; hence, the Wakf Board holds supervisory power over all notified Wakfs irrespective of registration, including those receiving public offerings. (Paras 18, 21, 22)
Result: The writ petition is disposed of with directions to the Wakf Board to conduct enquiry into the allegations of mismanagement in accordance with law within twelve weeks.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of petition and background of wakf mismanagement allegations (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. procedural history and impleadment of parties (Para 4 , 9) |
| 3. factual disputes and pending civil suits about management (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. parties’ contentions on jurisdiction and legal status of wakf (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. facts indicating public nature of wakf via offerings and control (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 19 , 20) |
| 6. court’s legal analysis on wakf status and supervisory jurisdiction (Para 18 , 21 , 22) |
| 7. final orders directing enquiry and case disposal (Para 23) |
ORDER
The Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction to the 1st respondent to conduct enquiry regarding administration of Sayeedani Bi Dargah situated at S.No.167/2, Dindivanam Road, Vandavaasi Town, Thiruvannamalai District and to take appropriate action to bring the Wakf under the direct Management of the Wakf Board by considering the petitioner's representation dated 27.02.2023.
2. According to the petitioner, the Sayeedani Bi Dargah is a registered and notified Wakf under the supervisory control of the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board. It is claimed by the petitioner that he is a worshipper of the Wakf and Jamathar and hence, he is a person interested in the Wakf.
3. It is not in dispute that as per the proforma, Wakf is administered by Mutawalli, whose office is Hereditary. It was claimed by the petitioner that Wakf is a renowned Dargah, having worshippers coming from several places and the Wakf gets huge contribution from the General Public. It is also claimed that the funds of the Wakf are not properly accounted and the same is mismanaged by the persons in Management of the Wakf. Accordingly, he submitted a representation dated 27.02.2023 before the 1st respondent and the same was not considered. Hence, he has filed this writ petition.
4. It is not in dispute that earlier my predecessor passed an order directing the 1st respondent to get a sworn affidavit from the petitioner regarding the alleged mismanagement and conduct an enquiry in the manner contemplated under Section 71 of the Wakf Act. Later, upon the application filed by the 2nd respondent in W.M.P.No.5208 of 2024, my predecessor held that order passed by him in the main writ petition deserved to be recalled as it was passed without hearing the 2nd respondent and allowed the petition to recall the order. Therefore, the writ petition is again restored to the file and the 2nd respondent was impleaded in the main writ petition and it is being posted for rehearing.
5. After impleadment, the 2nd respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that the above said Dargah/Wakf is a private one and Waqf Board has got no jurisdiction over the same.
6. It is mainly contended by the 2nd respondent that one A.Shoukath Ali, who was also an office bearer of Dargah misused his position and embezzled the money from the hundiyals and threatened the office bearers that he would approach the 1st respondent to create commotion and confusion concerning the Dargah. It was claimed by the 2nd respondent that on 09.08.1987, the said A.Shoukath Ali entered Dargah and had stolen two hundiyals, cupboard keys, and account books etc. Therefore, the Management of the Dargah including the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.167 of 1997 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court at Vandavasi against the said A.Shoukath Ali seeking injunction from interfering with the functioning of the Dargah. The said suit was decreed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant therein A.Shoukath Ali had filed an appeal in A.S.No.44 of 2013 on the file of the Sub Court, Cheyyar. The Appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the said A.Shoukath Ali preferred second appeal in S.A.No.962 of 2015 before this Court and the same was dismissed. However, the injunction granted in favour of the Wakf was restricted till the registration of the Wakf before the 1st respondent. Against the res
