Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2986 (MAD)

Haji. M. Saleem Baig v. Janab A. Kaja Nazmudeen

2017-09-01

T.RAVINDRAN

body2017
ORDER : Invoking the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the present civil revision petition has been laid by the revision petitioners/defendants 5 to 10 to call for the entire records pertaining to W.O.P.No.3 of 2015, on the file of the Wakf Tribunal, Dindigul and to direct the Wakf Tribunal, Dindigul, to dismiss the above said wakf original petition on the ground of maintainability and also on the ground of abuse of process of law. 2. Therefore, even on a perusal of the reliefs sought for by the revision petitioners/defendants 5 to 10 would go to disclose that by way of this civil revision petition, they seek to dismiss W.O.P.No.3 of 2015, pending on the file of the Wakf Tribunal/Principal Sub Court, Dindigul, stating that the same is not maintainable and it had been preferred by abusing the process of law. If that be the case and contention of the revision petitioners/defendants 5 to 10, as rightly argued by the contesting respondents, who had laid W.O.P.No.3 of 2015, the revision petitioners/defendants 5 to 10, should have moved the concerned Court and put forth their objections to the maintainability of the above said original petition pending before the Tribunal and thereby invited the orders of the Tribunal as regards their contentions. However, instead of resorting to the above said course available to them under law, it is found that the revision petitioners/defendants 5 to 10 have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Be that as it may, it is found that on the basis of the materials placed, a scheme decree seems to have been formulated in O.S.No.49 of 1914, by the Sub Court, Ramanathapuram, and according to the revision petitioners/defendants 5 to 10, the contesting parties therein had formulated the draft scheme with necessary clauses and thereby, according to them, the Management Committee was constituted for managing the administration of the wakf property consisting of five members in the ratio of 3 : 2 i.e., three members from the respectable residents of Begampur with Mohammedan faith and two members from among the family members of the original trustee, namely, the defendants 4 and 5. It is found that on the advent of the Wakf Act and as the members were not constituted as per the terms of the scheme decree, it is the case of the revision petitioners/defendants 5 to 10, they had filed a writ petition in W.P.No.10377 of 2003 seeking for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board to follow the provisions of the scheme decree framed by the Sub Court, Ramanathapuram and to constitute the Management Committee for managing the administration of the wakf property. It is further seen that following the notice issued by the Wakf Board to the concerned members, the Wakf Board had passed an order in its proceedings, dated 17.03.2003, and thereby, it is found that the Wakf Board had resolved to annul the election held on 29.09.2001 and further resolved to call for applications from the Jamath and Huqdars for constituting a five member committee, the composition of which should be in the proportion of 3 : 2, three from the muslim community in Dindigul and two from the families of original trustees (Huqdars), who were administering the wakf. 4. It is further seen that challenges were made to the above mentioned proceedings, dated 17.03.2003, before the Wakf Tribunal, in W.O.P.No.3 of 2003 and W.O.P.No.1 of 2008, by some persons interested in the Wakf and finally, it is found that the objections put forth in the above said original petitions before the Wakf Tribunal were rejected and further, it is found that the further challenge made to the same in this Court by way of civil revision petitions also came to be dismissed. 5. Inasmuch as the Wakf Board has not further implemented the proceedings, dated 17.03.2003, it is found that a writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.14946 of 2012 was laid and accordingly, as per the directions passed in the above said writ petition, the Wakf Boad was called upon to consider the representations of the petitioners in the above said writ petition and in this connection, it is also noted that certain contempt petitions were also instituted before the Wakf Board. Be that as it may, it is now seen that the Wakf Board has implemented its own order, dated 17.03.2003 by passing the resolution No.15 of 2013 made in Na.Ka.No.5142/02/A8/Dindigul, dated 28.05.2015 and it is found that the above said order, dated 28.05.2015, is put in challenge before the Wakf Tribunal in W.O.P.No.3 of 2015 by the respondents 1 to 7. Challenging the proceedings of the same before the Wakf Tribunal, the present civil revision petition has come to be laid. 6. It is, thus, found that the earlier proceedings of the persons aggrieved before the Wakf Tribunal in W.O.P.Nos.3 of 2003 and 1 of 2008 had been preferred only as against the proceedings of the Wakf Board, dated 17.03.2003. As seen above, the above said proceedings were not accepted by the Wakf Tribunal and in such view of the matter, it is found that the above said proceedings do not pertain to the order of the Wakf Board, dated 28.05.2015. Only in W.O.P.No.3 of 2015, pending on the file of the Wakf Tribunal, Dindigul, the challenge is made to the above said order, dated 28.05.2015. 7. It is the case of the respondents 1 to 7 that the revision petitioners/defendants 5 to 10 had forged the scheme decree as such by filing the typed copy of the revised scheme and sought for the direction thereon by invoking the power of the Wakf Board and as the Wakf Board on the basis of the above said unacceptable typed copy of the scheme decree constituted the five members committee in the ratio of 3:2, without discussing or giving reasons about the entitlement of the members to be a part of the said committee, particularly, without giving any reason as to how and on what basis the selection of the members from the families of the original trustees had been determined, it is found that they had been necessitated to institute the proceedings before the Wakf Tribunal in W.O.P.No.3 of 2015. 8. However, contending that this is another round of litigation by the respondents 1 to 7 before the Wakf Tribunal by abusing the process of law and when the Wakf Tribunal has passed the order, dated 28.05.2015, based upon its resolution, dated 17.03.2003, according to the revision petitioners/defendants 5 to 10, W.O.P.No.3 of 2015 is not maintainable and it has been laid by abusing the process of law. With reference to the above contentions, it is stated that since the Wakf Tribunal had earlier rejected W.O.P.Nos.3 of 2003 and 1 of 2008 and the civil revision petitions filed as against the same also ended in failure, according to them, when the Wakf Board had passed the final order, dated 28.05.2015 pursuant to the directions of the High Court in the writ petition above referred to, the impugned proceedings cannot be made to lie as per law and liable to be quashed as such. Certain legal pleas were also put forth that once the decision of the Wakf Tribunal becomes final, the same cannot be re-agitated by one way or the other and according to the petitioners, the respondents 1 to 7 have initiated W.O.P.No.3 of 2015 only at the instance of the persons, who had preferred W.O.P.Nos.3 of 2003 and 1 of 2008 and therefore, if this type of litigation is allowed to perpetuate endlessly, there cannot by any quietus to the issues and it would amount to opening floodgates as against the orders of the Wakf Board and therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the wakf original petition as not maintainable. 9. In the light of the above discussions, as rightly put forth by the learned counsel for the respondents, it is found that the issues sought to be raised by the petitioners/defendants 5 to 10 for the dismissal of W.O.P.No.3 of 2015 cannot be determined by this Court by invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The issues, which are required to be sorted out in the above said proceedings, are found to be both on facts as well as on legal points. The issues, which are required to be sorted out in the above said proceedings, are found to be both on facts as well as on legal points. Therefore, it could be seen that when the respondents 1 to 7 have thrown a direct challenge to the typed copy of the scheme decree itself filed by the revision petitioners/defendants 5 to 10 before the Wakf Tribunal seeking for the orders of Wakf Board and when consequently, the Wakf Board had also passed the orders, dated 17.03.2003 and 28.05.2015 and when further, according to the respondents, the members of the management committee had not been selected by the Wakf Board properly and the basis on which the selection of members had been done has also not been clearly spelt out in its impugned order, according to the respondents, they being aggrieved by the same are entitled to challenge the same before the Wakf Tribunal as per the Wakf Act and therefore, the same could not be quashed or dismissed as not maintainable for the reasons stated by the revision petitioners/defendants 5 to 10. 10. Therefore, considering the issues in toto involved in the matter, I am of the considered opinion that if, according to the revision petitioners/defendants 5 to 10, the proceedings before the Wakf Tribunal in W.O.P.No.3 of 2015 are not maintainable for the reasons stated by them and as detailed in the revision petition, it is for them to raise all the issues before the concerned Tribunal so as to enable the contesting respondents to repudiate the same in the manner known to law and thereby further enabling the Wakf Tribunal to permit the parties to adduce evidence with reference to their respective claims and only thereafter, it is found that the issues as to whether the proceedings initiated before the Wakf Tribunal in W.O.P.No.3 of 2015 are made by abusing the process of law or on valid points could be sorted out. In such view of the matter, the issues, which are required to be determined in the matter pending before the Wakf Tribunal could be adjudicated only by the adduction of the evidence by the concerned parties thereto, it is found that by way of the present civil revision petition, in my considered opinion, the revision petitioners/defendants 5 to 10 are endeavouring to convert the High Court as a Trial Court for inviting the decision on the various contentions involved in the matter, which have to be adjudicated only by the Wakf Tribunal in the proceedings pending before it. 11. In the light of the above position, the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants 5 to 10 and reported in 1998 (III) CTC 165 [Nesammal and another vs. Edward and another], (2006) 1 M.L.J. 116 [A.Sreedevi vs. Vicharapu Ramakrishna Gowd], (2008) 3 MLJ 821 [M.Somasundaram and another vs. District Collector-cum-Accommodation Controller, Chennai and others] and AIR 2010 PATNA 189 [Bhagirath Prasad Singh vs. Ram Narayan Rai and another] are found to be not applicable to the case at hand, however, the principles of law outlined in the above cited decisions are taken into consideration and followed as applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand. 12. In the light of the above discussions, I hold that the relief sought for by the revision petitioners/defendants 5 to 10 in this civil revision petition cannot be granted as such. It is for the revision petitioners/defendants 5 to 10 to approach the concerned Wakf Tribunal and seek their remedy in the manner known to law. 13. Resultantly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petitions are closed.