W.A.No.1668 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 22.08.2023

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU

W.A.No.1668 of 2023

The Reconstruction Committee of

Management - AUQAF

Rep. by its President

Periya Palli Vasal

Maasthan Sahib Valiyullah Dargah Shareef

Masthan Palli Street

Karaikal 609 602.

..

Appellant

Vs.

1. Z.Mohamed Tahir Sahib

2. Union of India

rep. by the Chief Secretary to Government

Government of Puducherry

Chief Secretariat

Puducherry.

3. The Secretary to Government

Department of Hindu Religious Institution and WAQF

Government of Puducherry

Chief Secretariat

Puducherry.

Page 1 of 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.1668 of 2023

4. The Chief Town Planner cum Member Secretary

State Level Heritage Conservation and Advisory Committee

Town and Country Planning Department

Government of Puducherry

Puducherry.

5. The District Collector cum District Magistrate

Government of Puducherry

Office of the District Magisrate

Karaikal, Puducherry.

6. The WAQF Officer

Puducherry State WAQF Board

No.1 & 3, Yenam Venkatachalam Pillai Street

Puducherry.

7. The Director General of Archaeological Survey of India

Dharohar Bhawan

No.24, Tilak Marg

New Delhi 110 001.

8. The Director

Archaeological Survey of India

Room No.328, C Wing

Shastri Bhawan

New Delhi 110 001.

9. The Senior Conservation Assistant

Archaeological Survey of India

Puducherry Sub Circle

No.17, III Cross, Anna Nagar, Nellithope

Puducherry.

..

Respondents

Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the

order dated 05.05.2023 made in W.P.No.14386 of 2023.

Page 2 of 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.1668 of 2023

For the Appellant

: Mr.T.P.Manoharan

Senior Counsel

For Mr.T.M.Naveen

For the Respondents

: Mr.P.Venkatraman

for Respondent-1

Mr.Ramasamy Meyyappan

Government Advocate (P)

for Respondents 2 to 9

JUDGMENT

(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

Heard Mr.T.P.Manoharan, learned Senior Counsel for

Mr.T.M.Naveen,

learned

counsel

for

the

appellant,

Mr.P.Venkatraman, learned counsel for the first respondent and

Mr.Ramasamy Meyyappan, learned Government Advocate for the

respondents 2 to 9.

2. The appellant assails the order passed by the learned

Single Judge dated 05.05.2023 and subsequently, clarified on

10.08.2023, in W.P.No.14386 of 2023.

Page 3 of 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.1668 of 2023

3. Amongst other submissions, one of the submission of

learned Senior Counsel for the appellant is that though the

appellant was the sixth respondent in the writ petition, no notice

was issued to the sixth respondent/present appellant and the writ

petition was disposed of recording the statement of learned

Additional Government Pleader. According to the appellant,

reconstruction is also required for some part of the property. The

same has not been considered.

4. According to learned counsel for the original writ petitioner/

first respondent herein, in fact, the building is a heritage building

and the present appellant is trying to demolish the heritage

structure.

5. It would appear that the writ petition is disposed of by

recording the statement of learned Additional Government Pleader.

6. As the stand of the present appellant is otherwise than the

stand of the Government and that the present appellant has not

Page 4 of 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.1668 of 2023

been served with the notice of the writ petition, it would be

appropriate that opportunity is given to the present appellant also

to put forth its case.

7. In the light of that, the impugned order passed by the

learned Single Judge is set aside. The parties herein shall appear

before the learned Single Judge on 18.09.2023. The learned Single

Judge ma