THE SECRETARY HAMEEDIA JAMIA PALLIVASAL NO. 1, ARCOT ROAD, SALIGRAMAM, CHENNAI Vs. THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Tahsildar, notwithstanding the availability of records and string of documents relating to ownership of the subject property by the appellant including the report of survey and notification of Wakf property in the Gazette Notification dated 4 May, 1959 issued patta to the legal representatives of the Watchman employed by a trespasser, who was in possession of a portion of the land illegally and that too without even issuing notice to the Wakf Board and in violation of the provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995. The illegal order was set aside by the Revenue Divisional Officer pursuant to the appeal filed by the Wakf. The learned single Judge entertained the writ petition filed by the aggrieved and while setting aside the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer directed the Wakf to approach the Civil Court for declaring its title and possession by wrongly interpreting a decision of the Division Bench of this Court, instead of directing the writ petitioners, who have no semblance of right to approach the concerned Civil Court or adjudication of the right claimed by them. The order is under challenge at the instance of the notified Wakf represented by the Secretary, Hameedia Jamia Pallivasal, Chennai. Brief Facts

(2.) The respondents 3 and 4 filed a petition before the Tahsildar, Egmore - Nungambakkam Taluk, claiming that the property admeasuring 0.30.60 Hectares in Block No.41 T.S.No.61 O.S.Nos.124/part, 125/part and 128/part of Saligramam Village has been in the possession and enjoyment of Thiru. P. Karuppasamy Thevar, the husband of the third respondent and father of the fourth respondent from 1970 onwards. The revenue records available with the Tahsildar indicated that the land was registered in the name of Muthavalli, Hameedia Jamia Pallivasal and Wakf Board. However, without even issuing notice to the appellant or the Wakf Board, the Tahsildar, by order dated 9 February, 2010 granted patta to the respondents 3 and 4. The said order was challenged by the appellant before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chennai under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983. The Revenue Divisional Officer called upon the respondents 3 and 4 to submit documents to substantiate their ownership and possession of the property. However, no such document was produced. The Appellate Authority found that the property was registered in the name of Hameedia Jamia Pallivasal and Wakf Board and that the civil suit filed by the Wakf Board in O.S.No.932 of 1986 for eviction of trespasser has already been decreed by the Civil City Court. The Appellate Authority, therefore, allowed the appeal by setting aside the order passed by the Tahsildar. The original entry was directed to be restored.

(3.) The order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 28 October, 2011 was challenged by the respondents 3 and 4 before the writ court in W.P.No.28012 of 2011. Even before the writ court, documents were filed by the respondents 3 and 4 to substantiate their contention with regard to ownership and possession.