Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 635 (MAD)

Jagir Ammapalayam Wakf v. State Of Tamilnadu

2012-02-07

M.JAICHANDREN

body2012
Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsels appearing for the respondents. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner had been appointed as a joint Muthawalli of Jagir Ammapalayam and Chettichavadi Wakf, by the proceedings of the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, dated 28.5.2003. 3. It has been further stated that a writ petition had been filed before this Court, in W.P.No.47453 of 2006, praying for a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 and 2 therein, to alter the entries of Anadeenam, Tharisu, Karadu and Poromboke lands against the petitioner Wakf by entering the names of Jagir Ammapalayam and Chettichavadi Wakfs, in the relevant revenue registers of Suramangalam, Reddipatti, Bomminaickenpatti, Kaminaickenpatti, Kurumbapatti, Thathiengarpatti, Moongilpadi, Karuppur and Vellakkalpatti and other such villages of Salem District. 4. This Court, by an order, dated 9.4.2008, made in the said writ petition, had directed the third respondent to hold a survey to identify the properties of the petitioner Wakf and thereafter, to pass appropriate orders confirming such identification and report the same to the fourth respondent, in order to enable him to take the necessary steps to alter the entries in the relevant revenue records, as prayed for by the petitioner. This court had directed that such exercise shall be carried out by the said respondent, from the date of the receipt of the said order. It had also been directed that the fourth respondent shall implement the report of the third respondent by making necessary corrections in the revenue records, as noted above, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of the report from the office of the third respondent. It had also been stated, in the said order, that if any encroachment had been noted, during the survey conducted by the third respondent, it would be open to the petitioner to take appropriate steps for reclaiming such properties and to restore the same to the petitioner Wakf, in the manner known to law. 5. Pursuant to the said direction, the third respondent had issued the proceedings, in Rc.No.(Wakf)7990/06, dated 27.7.2009. In the said proceedings, the third respondent had stated that the Wakf Act, 1995, has been enacted to provide for the better administration of wakfs and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. 5. Pursuant to the said direction, the third respondent had issued the proceedings, in Rc.No.(Wakf)7990/06, dated 27.7.2009. In the said proceedings, the third respondent had stated that the Wakf Act, 1995, has been enacted to provide for the better administration of wakfs and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. From a reading of Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Wakf Act, 1995, it is clear that the Survey Commissioner has to prepare the list of wakfs, with the details of its properties, for better administration for such wakfs. However, the ownership of the properties concerned has to be proved only by the respective wakfs, represented by its muthawallis. It had also been stated that the Wakf Act, 1995, does not provide for the determination of the ownership of the disputed properties. 6. It has been further stated that the Wakf notification, dated 29.4.1959, does not contain the details of the properties belonging to the petitioner Wakfs. Therefore, the disputes arising with regard to the classification and entries could be agitated by way of an appeal, before the appropriate forum, as provided under the said Act. In the proceedings of the third respondent, it had also been stated that the disputed lands had been under various types of occupation, as reported by the Tahsildars concerned. As per Section 25 of the Limitation Act, the peaceful possession of the properties in question, by those who are in enjoyment of the same, for more than 30 years, cannot be disturbed. The petitioner had not produced any records, titles deeds or other relevant documents to identify its properties or to show its enjoyment of such properties, in order to establish its rights, in respect of such properties. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the third respondent does not have the authority or jurisdiction to pass the impugned order, dated 27.7.2009, contrary to the directions issued by this Court, in W.P.No.47453 of 2006, dated 9.4.2008. When this Court had directed the third respondent to survey the properties in question and to file a report before the fourth respondent, for making the necessary corrections in the entries in the relevant revenue records, it would not be open to the third respondent to state that the petitioner is to establish its rights, in respect of the properties in question, by moving the appropriate appellate forum or the other authorities concerned. In fact, the order passed by the third respondent would amount to contempt of Court, for disobeying the directions issued by this Court, by its order, dated 9.4.2008. 8. The learned counsel had further submitted that sufficient opportunities had not been given to the petitioner to produce the documents and to clarify the position, in spite of the clear directions issued by this Court. Therefore, it was prayed that this Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned proceedings of the third respondent, dated 27.7.2009, and to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to furnish the necessary details, along with the relevant records, before the third respondent, in respect of the properties in question. The petitioner may also be given a personal hearing to clarify certain doubts, which may arise in the course of the exercise to be undertaken by the third respondent, for identifying the properties said to be belonging to the petitioner Wakfs and for filing a report before the fourth respondent, for making the appropriate entries in the relevant revenue records of the villages concerned. 9. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the third respondent it has been stated that the villages of Jagirammapalayam of Salem Taluk and Chettichavadi of Omalur Taluk in Salem District had been taken over by the Government, under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, as per G.O.No.781, Revenue, dated 12.3.1965. 10. It had been further stated that the settlement work had been completed and the fair accounts had been handed over to the District Revenue Administration for maintenance, from 4.12.1972 onwards. Therefore, anyone, who may be aggrieved by the decision taken during the settlement proceedings, had to approach the competent appellate forum, as prescribed in the said Act, for getting the necessary relief. If no appeal had been filed against the decisions taken, or the orders passed during the settlement proceedings, the classification and entries in the relevant registers shall become final, as per section 71 of the said Act. 11. It had also been stated that, as per the provisions of the Wakf Act, 1995, it is the duty of the Survey Commissioner to submit a report to the state Government containing the necessary particulars relating to the Wakf. 11. It had also been stated that, as per the provisions of the Wakf Act, 1995, it is the duty of the Survey Commissioner to submit a report to the state Government containing the necessary particulars relating to the Wakf. A joint meeting had been convened by the Taluk Tahsildars, as prescribed in G.O.No.18 B.C & M.B.C. Welfare Department, dated 6.4.1998, for collecting the necessary particulars in respect of the Wakfs. However, necessary particulars had not been furnished by the wakfs, till date. 12. It had also been stated that, under Section 4(3) of the Wakf Act, 1995, the Director of Survey and Settlement, Chennai, who has been appointed as the Survey Commissioner for Wakf, has the powers only for making survey of the wakfs and to submit a report to the state Government, in respect of Wakfs existing in the State, on the date of the commencement of the Act. For conducting the necessary enquiries, the Survey Commissioner had been provided with the same powers, which are vested in a Civil Court, under the code of Civil Procedure, 1908. However, the Survey Commissioner for Wakf has not been provided with any power to pass orders, as to the properties identified by him, as wakf properties, during the course of his enquiries. The report submitted by the Survey Commissioner of Wakf, to the State Government, shall be forwarded to the Wakf Board and a report, would be published in the official gazette, by the Wakf Board. 13. It had also been stated that, from the settlement records of Jagirammapalayam and Chettichavadi Villages, it had been noted that both the Jamin villages had been taken over by the Government, under the provisions of the Tamil nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963. As per the notification, published under the Act, the entire lands under the inams had been fully transferred to the State Government, with effect from the notified date. As per the provisions of the said Act, any person, who may be aggrieved by the decision of the settlement authorities, regarding the classification of the lands, the title of the lands in question, etc., has to file an appeal before the appropriate appellate forum, within the time prescribed in the said Act. If no such appeal has been preferred, the orders already passed shall become final, as per Section 71 of the Act. 14. If no such appeal has been preferred, the orders already passed shall become final, as per Section 71 of the Act. 14. It had been further stated that, in compliance with the order passed by this Court, on 9.4.2008, in W.P.No.47453 of 2006, the petitioner had been asked to appear before the Director of Survey and Settlement for an enquiry and to produce all the connected records, including the title deeds, the wakfs notification, dated 29.4.1959, the wakf chitta and other such relevant records. Though the petitioner had participated in the enquiry, it had submitted only the copies of the settlement and resettlement registers, relating to the villages concerned. However, the petitioner had not submitted any records before the Survey Commissioner of Wakf, to establish its title in respect of the properties in question. 15. It had also been stated that the lands in question had been under different types of occupation. From the lists showing the present status of the lands, it could be noted that some of the lands had been encroached upon and had been under cultivation or used for residential purposes. Free pattas had been granted to the beneficiaries, in respect of some of the lands, under the various welfare schemes. Some of the other lands had been allotted for the use of the Government Departments and for the use by the Railways and other Institutions, like Colleges, Schools, etc., and some lands had been put to communal uses, and some of them had been allotted to various Companies, including, the Dalmiya Cement Company. Therefore, the process of verification and identification and substitution of the entries made in the relevant revenue records of the villages concerned would be extremely difficult, at this stage, after a lapse of nearly four decades, after the lands had been settled, as per the Inam Act. In such circumstances, it would be appropriate for the petitioner to agitate the matter before the authorities concerned or before the appellate forum prescribed under the Inam Act, in order to establish its rights. Further, it would be open to the petitioner to agitate the matter, in case of any dispute, before the appropriate civil forum. 16. In such circumstances, it would be appropriate for the petitioner to agitate the matter before the authorities concerned or before the appellate forum prescribed under the Inam Act, in order to establish its rights. Further, it would be open to the petitioner to agitate the matter, in case of any dispute, before the appropriate civil forum. 16. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, it is seen that the third respondent has passed the impugned order, dated 27.7.2009, pursuant to the order passed by this Court, on 9.4.2008, in W.P.No.47453 of 2006. However, it is seen that the petitioner had not produced the necessary records before the third respondent to clearly identify the properties in question in order to establish its rights. As such, the third respondent has passed the impugned order stating that the settlement of the lands had taken place, as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act and the lands had been put to various uses by various private persons, in Departments of the governments and in other Institutions like colleges, schools and companies. 17. Even though this court, by its order, dated 9.4.2008, made in W.P.No.47453 of 2006, had directed the third respondent to survey the lands in question and to file a report before the fourth respondent, by making the necessary alterations in the relevant records, it could not be done due to the difficulties expressed by the third respondent, in his impugned order, dated 27.7.2009. Further, it is clear that such an elaborate exercise cannot be undertaken and completed by the third respondent, as per the directions of this court issued in its order, dated 9.4.2008, without the relevant records being furnished by the petitioner, as required by the third respondent, to identify the properties in question and to file a proper report before the fourth respondent, by making the necessary entries in the revenue records concerned. 18. The third respondent has also made certain observations, in his impugned order, dated 27.7.2009, regarding the availability of alternative remedies, which may be of relevance. 18. The third respondent has also made certain observations, in his impugned order, dated 27.7.2009, regarding the availability of alternative remedies, which may be of relevance. However, in view of the directions already issued by this Court, in its order, dated 9.4.2008, which had become final, it is found to be appropriate, to direct the third respondent to provide another opportunity to the petitioner, to furnish the necessary records, for the verification and identification of the properties in question. However, it is made clear that, in case of any difficulty, arising during the implementation of the directions issued by this Court, by its order, dated 9.4.2008, or in case of any dispute arising, in respect of the occupation, possession and enjoyment of the properties in question or in respect of the title and other such rights relating to such properties, said to be belonging to the petitioner Wakfs, as may be pointed out by the third respondent, it would be open to the petitioner to establish its rights, in respect of such properties, before the appropriate forum or authority, or before the civil courts concerned, in the manner known to law. The writ petitions is ordered accordingly No costs. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2011 is closed.