Valid Waqf claims must include specific property details in gazette notifications; failure on this point allows third-party rights. High Court preserves property rights despite Waqf claims.

Order

The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the order passed by the first respondent vide proceedings dated 16.05.2024 and to quash the same and consequently, to direct the first respondent to register the settlement deed presented by the petitioner on 26.07.2022 in favour of his wife and return back the Settlement Deed to the petitioner.

2. I have abbreviated the facts of the case by restricting it only to the relevant details:-

i) The Settlement Tahsildar, Coimbatore, vide order dated 15.11.1973, declared that one Lazum Huq, S/o Kazhi S.Sahul, is entitled to the grant of ryotwari patta, in respect of a property, comprised in S.No.407, measuring an extent of 36.42 acres of wet land situated at Alingiyam, Village, Dharapuram Taluk, The said order passed by the Settlement Tahsildar was challenged by the fourth respondent by way of an Appeal before the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams Tribunal, Coimbatore (Principal Sub Judge) in C.M.A.No.4 of 1987. The said Appeal was dismissed on the aspect of limitation. No challenge was made as against the said dismissal. Subsequently, the aforesaid property was conveyed by A.S.Bajlul in favour of S.S.Abdul Salam, by way of a sale deed dated 30.03.1985.

ii) Thereafter, a suit in O.S.No.69 of 1988 was filed by the respondent-Wakf Board before the Sub Court, Dharapuram, for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the property in S.No.401 and vide judgment and decree dated 08.11.1990, the suit was dismissed. Subsequently, on 23.06.1984, a sale deed was executed by S.S.Abdul Salam, conveying the entire extent of property in S.No.401 in favour of one Kanchanamala. In the meantime, an Appeal was preferred by the second respondent-Wakf Board as against the judgment passed in the Original Suit, in A.S.No.476 of 1994 and this Court vide judgement and decree dated 03.07.2002, dismissed the Appeal for default.

iii) Subsequently, on 17.06.2021, the said Kanchanamala out of the larger extent of 36.42 ares of land in R.S.No.182/1 (Old S.No.401) executed a) sale deed in favour of R.Sabapathy and S.Santhamani, conveying an extent of 18.46 acres, b) another portion of land, measuring an extent of 7.1 acres was conveyed in favour of K.Madhusudhanan (petitioner herein) by executing sale deed on the same date, c) remaining portion of land measuring to an extent of 4.7 acres of land was conveyed by the said Kanchamala in favour of R.Sabapahty, K.Madhusudhanan, N.Kathiresan and R.Vanitha by executing sale deed on the same date (17.06.2021). After such purchase, all the purchasers earmarked the pathway in the said land to enable the purchasers to utilize the land and all of them jointly laid down the pathway to the extent of 1.46 acres.

iv) Thereafter, on 17.02.2022, that the said R.Sabapathy and S.Santhamani executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner conveying an extent of 50 cents out of 18.46 acres in New R.S.No.182/1A1. Later on, i.e. on 26.07.2022, the petitioner intended to settle the property in favour of his wife and presented a settlement deed for registration. But, the first respondent vide a Refusal Check Slip dated 26.07.2022 refused to register the settlement deed by citing the reason that the second respondent-Waqf Board by virtue a communication dated 21.02.2022 instructed the first respondent not to register any document in respect of property comprised in S.No.401 by stating that property as 'Waqf Property'.

v) Challenging such refusal, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition before this Court in W.P.No.23261 of 2022 (first Writ Petition) and this Court, vide order dated 30.08.2022, set aside the Refusal Check Slip issued by the firs