Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 40677
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.V. Thamilselvi, J
S. Chandira w/o. R. Selvam (late) – Appellant
Versus
The District Collector Collectorate, Vengikkal, Tiruvannamalai – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition | CMP NO. 10684 OF 2026,CMP NO. 10680 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. A. R. Balaji for M/S. Eswar, Kumar and Rao
For the Respondents:Mr. V. Ramesh Government Advocate
Courts must expeditiously decide interim stay petitions of vulnerable persons facing eviction threats.
Headnote:Statute Analysis: Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 52(1) of the Waqf Act, the High Court exercises supervisory jurisdiction. Facts of the Case: Petitioner, a widow aged 56 years, challenged a show cause notice seeking dispossession and the refusal of interim relief by the Waqf Tribunal.
Findings of Court:
Court found urgency and directed expeditious disposal of stay petition within eight weeks, maintaining status quo.
Issues: Whether the tribunal erred in adjourning the stay petition without due consideration of urgency.
Ratio Decidendi: High Court must protect possession of a vulnerable widow pending final adjudication.
Result: Civil Revision Petition is disposed, with directions for early disposal and interim protection.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background and procedural challenge. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments on widow's emergency and procedural delay. (Para 2) |
| 3. court directs expeditious disposal of stay petition and grants interim protection. (Para 3) |
ORDER
The appellant is the revision petitioner herein. Challenging the issuance of show cause notice passed in Na.Ka.M2/44168/2009, dated 19.11.2024 by the 1st respondent District Collector, by invoking Sec.52(1) of the Waqf Act, he had preferred first appeal and also filed a petition in C.M.P.No. 9 of 2026 praying to stay the operation of the said impugned notice. Notice served on the Government Officials. The learned counsel for 2nd respondent Waqf appeared and not filed any objections. However, the trial court had adjourned the case to 29.04.2026 without considering the emergency on the side of appellant, since based on the notice, they have attempted to take possession. Aggrieved over that, the revision petitioner preferred this Civil Revision Petition.
2. The learned counsel for revision petitioner would submit that since the revision petitioner being a widow lady, who was in possession of property and without considering the nature of lease as well as apprehension, the trial court erroneously adjourned the matter without passing any order.
3. Considering the fact that the revision petitioner being a widow lady and aged about 56 years was in possession of property and also considering the nature of lease, this Court is inclined to direct the trial judge to consider the petition filed in C.M.P.No. 9 of 2026 and to dispose the same within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Till then, not to cause any interference in the enjoyment of suit property. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petitions are closed.
