ARUNACHALAM Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR TIRUVANNAMALAI DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The notice issued by the District Collector, Tiruvannamalai District, stating that the encroachers, who are in occupation of the Wakf property should vacate the encroached premises within thirty days, failing which further actions will be initiated for eviction. The said notice dated 22.04.2015 is under challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner made a submission that the writ petitioner is not an encroacher and the property in question has already owned by the writ petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner emphasized that the writ petitioner is the absolute owner of the property against which the present impugned notice has been issued. The petitioner claims that he purchased the said land by way of a sale deed and patta also stands in his favour. Thus, the very notice issued by the 1st respondent is untenable. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged this Court by stating that earlier, the very same issue had been adjudicated by the Principal Sub Ordinate Court, Tiruvannamalai in O.S.No.93 of 2009. However, the said suit filed by Nawab Chanda Mian Mosque represented by its Mutawalli K.Syed Yasin Sahib was dismissed and against the judgment and decree, a Civil Revision Petition in CRP.No.95 of 2010 was filed before this Court and the same is pending as of now. The learned counsel is of an opinion that when there was an adjudication in respect of the property by the Principal Sub Ordinate Court, Tiruvannamalai, the writ petitioner may not be driven to adjudicate the very same issue before the Wakf Tribunal under the Provisions of the Wakf Act. He further made a representation that the Civil Revision Petition is also pending. Under these circumstances, the petitioner need not approach the Wakf Tribunal once again for the adjudication of the title, ownership and possession. Thus, the writ petition deserves to be considered.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Wakf Board strenuously opposed the contention by stating that the writ petitioner is not the owner of the property. The writ petitioner is an encroacher of the land belongs to the Wakf Board and identifying the encroachments in the particular locality, the notice was issued to all the persons, who have encroached the Wakf properties. Thus, there is no irregularity in the issuance of the notice and it is for the petitioner to approach the Wakf Tribunal under the provisions of the Wakf Act and before exhausting the remedy provided under the statute, the present writ petition cannot be entertained.