C.R.P. (NPD) No. 3680 of 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 25.11.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR

C.R.P. (NPD) No. 3680 of 2019

and

C.M.P. No. 24186 of 2019

Nari Akbar Basha

... Petitioner

-Vs-

1. Tamil Nadu Waqf Board,

Represented by its Chief Executive Officer,

No. 1, Jaffar Syrang Street,

Vallal Seethakathi Nagar,

Chennai - 600 001.

2. Tamil Nadu Waqf Board - Vellore Zone,

Rep by its Zonal Superintendent,

No. 8, Bhadur Shah Masjid,

Arni Road, Sayeenathapuram,

Vellore - 632 001.

3. Cholavaram Ilyaas Ahmed

4. T. Abdul Waheed

5. T. Mohamed Kashif

... Respondents

Prayer : Petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code,

1908, r/w Section 83(9) of The Waqf Act 1995 against the fair and

decretal order dated 04.09.2019 passed by the Tamil Nadu Waqf

Tribunal, Chennai in A.A. No. 18 of 2019.

1/18

http://www.judis.nic.in

C.R.P. (NPD) No. 3680 of 2019

For Petitioner

: Mr. B. Ram Prasath

For Respondents : Mr. V. Lakshmi Narayanan

Standing Counsel for R1 and R2

Mr.M.M.I.Khaleel for R4

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order

passed by the Tamil Nadu Waqf Tribunal at Chennai in A.A. No. 18 of

2019, by order dated 04.09.2019.

2.

In respect of the notified waqf, namely Muslimpur

Thottipattari Masjith and Farookhiya Matharasa Waqf, there had been

an elected committee from the year 2013 to 2016 and once the term of

the elected committee was over in the year 2016, the committee was

given further extension of time for one year, which also was over by

2017, thereafter election ought to have been conducted to elect the new

Administrative Committee of the notified work i.e., subject waqf,

however for various reasons, the election could not be held immediately.

2/18

http://www.judis.nic.in

C.R.P. (NPD) No. 3680 of 2019

3.

In the meanwhile, the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board, who is the

first respondent herein, had appointed an Adhoc Committee by order

dated 06.03.2019, whereby nine members Adhoc Committee was

constituted which has taken in charge of the Waqf concerned.

4.

In that juncture, the present revision petitioner who was

the erstwhile Muthavalli, whose tenure was extended till 2017, had

approached the Tribunal assailing the said order appointing an Adhoc

Committe for a period of three years to maintain the Waqf. The said

appointment of Adhoc Committee was taken note of and accordingly,

the Tribunal decided the issue in A.A. No. 18 of 2019 through the

impugned order, rejecting the said appeal filed by the revision

petitioner, as against which, the present revision petition has been

filed.

5.

Heard Mr. B. Ram Prasath, learned counsel appearing for

the revision petitioner who would submit that, though the elected term

of three years was over by 2016 and extended time of one year was over

by 2017, it is the claim of the revision petitioner that, he continued even

3/18

http://www.judis.nic.in

C.R.P. (NPD) No. 3680 of 2019

beyond 2017, of course with the permission of the Superintendent of the

Waqf Board.

6.

When that being the position, all of a sudden, the Tamil

Nadu Waqf Board cannot plunge into action by constituting an Adhoc

Committee consisting of nine members, without including the name of

the revision petitioner. Therefore, the constitution of Adhoc Committee

is a wrong solution, hence, the revision petitioner, assailing the same,

has preferred this revision petition.

7.

The learned counsel would further submit that, the Waqf

Tribunal without going into merits of the issue by taking into account

that, when the revision petitioner had been in the helm of affairs, as

erstwhile Muthavalli, he had not at all been included in the present

Adhoc Committee, which is impugned, has rejected the said appeal filed

by the revision petitioner by stating that, the Adhoc Committee was

appointed by the Board for three years, therefore the s