CHAIRMAN TAMIL NADU Vs. M.S.MUHAMMAD YAHYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order of the Wakf Board made in item No. 21/09Va.Vi.Ma.8/08/U5/Chennai, dated 29.04.2010, the first respondent in CRP(PD) No. 3978 of 2012 filed O.A. No. 19 of 2011 before the Wakf Tribunal, Chennai (I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai). Challenging the same order of the Wakf Board, the respondent in CRP(PD) No. 3979 of 2012 also filed O.A. No. 16 of 2011 on the file of the Wakf Tribunal, (I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court), Chennai. The revision petitioners herein filed the above revisions to strike off the proceedings in O.A. Nos. 19 and 16 of 2011 on the file of the Wakf Tribunal (I Assistant City Civil Court), Chennai.

(2.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that under the order, which is impugned in O.A. Nos. 16 and 19 of 2011, the management of the Wakf, namely K. Magdoom Muhammed Markkayar was brought under the control of the first revision petitioner under section 65(1) of the Wakf Act and therefore, the first respondent in CRP(PD) No. 3978 and the respondent in CRP(PD) No. 3979 of 2012 cannot challenge the same before the Wakf Tribunal, as there is an effective and alternative remedy available before State Government under section 65(2) of the Wakf Act and therefore, the initiation of proceedings by the respondent in CRP(PD) No. 3979 of 2012 before the Wakf Board is without jurisdiction and therefore, the proceedings in O.A. Nos. 16 and 19 of 2011 are liable to be struck off. He relied upon the judgment rendered by me reported in the case of Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, represented by its Chairman, No. 1, Jaffar Syrang Street, Vallal Seethakadhi Nagar, Chennai-600 001 & 4 others vs. Janab K.S.M.A. Mohamed Mansoor, 2010 2 CTC 699 and in the case of Tamil Nadu Wakf Board rep. by its Chairman, Chennai and others vs. A. Sadhik Ali and others, 2011 7 MadLJ 1124 in support of his contention.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr. V. Manohar, the learned counsel for the respondent in CRP(PD) No. 3979 of 2012 submitted that proceedings were initiated under sections 32(2)[c] and [d] and 69 of the Wakf Act and there is a dispute regarding the character of the property and it is contested by the respondents in CRP(PD) No. 3978 of 2012 and also the respondent in CRP(PD) No. 3979 of 2012 that the property is not a Wakf property and it is the personal property belonging to the family of K. Magdoom Muhammad Marakayar and that was negatived and the Wakf Board has taken direct management by invoking the provision of section 65(1) of the Wakf Act and therefore, having regard to the issue raised before the Wakf Board regarding the character of the property, the Wakf Tribunal has got jurisdiction under section 83 of the Wakf Act and therefore, the proceedings initiated by the respondents before the Wakf Tribunal is competent and the Wakf Tribunal alone can decide about the character of the property and hence, both the revision petitions are liable to dismissed.