RAICHAND J SHAH Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN extent of one ground, 1710 sq. feet of land in a prime commercial locality in the city of Chennai, situated at R.S. 1441, 171. Triplicane High Road, Madras-5 is a Wakf property, belonging to Peer Shah Khadri Durga. The Muthavalli of the Wakf leased out the property to one Janab K.S. Allepy for a period of 50 years, under a registered document, dated 16.2.1951. The lessee appears to have, thereafter, put up a building on that leasehold property. A suit (O.S. No. 6699 of 1968) was later brought by the Special Officer of the Wakf, acting for the Wakf Board, for possession of the property, on the ground that the lease itself was void. During the pendency of the suit, the lessee expired. His legal representatives were brought on record and they invoked the City Tenants Protection Act and sought an order permitting them to purchase the leasehold property at the then prevailing market value. The value of the land was determined by the Court at Rs. 16,000/- per ground. Time was given to the legal representatives of the lessee to make the deposit on or before 18.11.1977. That deposit, however, was not made within that time, but was put into Court two years later, by which time the right to purchase the property had been lost. Several years later, the building that had been put up by the lessee on the land was purchased by the petitioners herein (Raichand J. Shah and three others). They also purported to have purchased the leasehold interest in the land that, allegedly, belonged to the legal representatives of the original lessee. I am informed by the learned Additional Advocate General that the consideration for the purchase of the building was Rs. 3 lakhs, the purchase having been effected in the year 1987, and the consideration paid for the purchase of the leasehold interest of the legal representatives of the original lessee was Rs. 10,000/-. After such purchase of the building and after the legal representatives of the original lessee had lost their right to purchase the land by reason of their noncompliance with the order of the Court, and after a period of nearly 40 years of the 50 year period of the lease had elapsed, the Wakf Board entertained the request made by the petitioners herein for the sale of the leasehold land to them and without recording any reasons as to why it was desirable to alienate the valuable land belonging to the Wakf situated in the commercial hub of the city and also without recording any reason as to how they considered the amount which they directed the petitioners to pay viz., the sum of Rs. 3 lakhs was the proper or the best value that could be obtained by the Wakf. A resolution was passed by the Wakf Board on 30.5.1991 in Resolution No. 53/91 that the land be alienated in favour of the petitioners for a consideration of Rs. 3 lakhs. The resolution also directed the Secretary of the Wakf Board to execute a sale deed in favour of the petitioners. It may be noticed here that the Wakf Board did not call for any offer from anyone else who may have been interested in the purchase of the property and the only offer before the Board was the one that was made by the petitioners. That sum of Rs. 3 lakhs is stated to have been paid by the petitioners after the resolution.

(2.) BEFORE any sale deed could be executed in favour of the petitioners, the matter was brought to the notice of the Government, by the Secretary of the Wakf Board, who appears to have addressed a letter to the Government in July 1991. The Government, thereafter, made an order on 9.9.1991, directing the Wakf Board to keep the resolution dated 30.5.1991 in abeyance. That order of the Government was challenged by the petitioners in W.P. No. 13992 of 1991, in which a learned single Judge of this Court, by order dated 20.11.1991, directed the Government to disclose to the petitioners the reasons for keeping the resolution in abeyance and also to put the petitioners on notice before passing any order on the question of validity of the sale sanctioned by the Wakf Board.

(3.) IT was submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Habibulla Basha, that the manner in which the Government has acted was wholly unwarranted by any of the provisions of the Wakf Act or by the terms of the order passed by the High Court in the writ petition, which the petitioners had filed earlier. IT was submitted that the orders made on 12.4.1993 and 24.5.1993 being orders which related to the property in respect of which the petitioners claimed their right to purchase, copies of the same should have been furnished to the petitioners. IT was further submitted that the Government having j admittedly made an order on 12.4.1993, which order, though not communicated to the petitioners, would still bind the Government and that order so made was incapable of being reviewed by the Government. Learned counsel, in this context, submitted that the fact that the order dated 12.4.1993 was not communicated to the petitioners was not of any consequence as, once the order was made, that would bind the Government and in the absence of express power to review, that order could not have been modified in any way by any subsequent order.