Partly allowed

The Inspector of Wakf, v. the District Collector

Madras HC26 Apr 2022WP(MD)/8189/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, while disposing of a writ petition challenging an order by the Executive Officer to demolish a mosque, held that the extent of encroachment by specific individuals was unclear. The Court remanded the case to the Executive Officer to ascertain the precise extent of encroachment before passing a fresh order. Connected miscellaneous petition closed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; case remitted to the 2nd respondent to re-examine the extent of encroachment and pass a fresh order expeditiously.

The Inspector of Wakf, Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.8189 of 2012

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 26.04.2022 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN W.P.(MD) No.8189 of 2012 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2012

¶3

The Inspector of Wakf, Dindigul Wakf Board College, Thaika Mahal, Mohammediapuram, Dindigul.

¶4

... Petitioner /vs./

¶5

1.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul. 2.The Executive Officer, Natham Town Panchayat Office, Natham, Dindigul District.

¶6

3.S.N.K.Abdul Muthalif ... Respondents

¶7

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the 2^nd respondent in his proceedings Tha.A.Vu.Sa.No. 50/2012/Aa dated 16.04.2012 and quash the same as illegal and consequentially to forbear the 2^nd respondent from demolishing the Pattinathar Pallivasal Mosque under the supervision of the Tamilnadu Wakf Board.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.S.A.Ajmal Khan For R1 : Mr.P.Subbaraj Special Government Pleader For R2 : Mr.S.Kumar For R3 : Mr.P.T.S.Narendravasan

¶9

ORDER

¶10

The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 16.04.2012 bearing Tha.A.Vu.Sa.No.50/2012/Aa of the 2^nd respondent.

¶11

2.The said order has been passed, pursuant to the order made in W.P.(MD) No.7447 of 2007 dated 31.01.2008. The said writ petition was filed as a Public Interest Litigation by the 3^rd respondent herein, who has now since deceased during the pendency of the present writ petition. The said writ petition was disposed of by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶12

1/2

¶13

W.P.(MD) No.8189 of 2012

¶14

directing the 2^nd respondent herein to take appropriate action pursuant to the show cause notices dated 22.01.2007 and 31.01.2007 issued by the 2^nd respondent to the respondents 4 and 5 therein, namely Ibrahim Oli and Shaik Dawood. Obviously, there appears to be some kind of an encroachment by these two persons, which was brought to the knowledge of this Court in W.P.(MD) No.7447 of 2007 and therefore, the above order came to be passed on 31.01.2008.

¶15

3.Considering the fact that there appears to be some kind of an encroachment by these two persons and the order has not clearly established the extent of encroachment by these two persons, I am inclined to remit the case back to the 2^nd respondent to re-do the exercise once again after giving the particulars of the alleged encroachment by these two persons. Even if the property belongs to the Wakf, it needs to be ascertained exactly as to what are the extent of the property that has been encroached by these two persons. The 2^nd respondent shall therefore pass a fresh order expeditiously giving the particulars of the alleged encroachment, if any and thereafter take steps for removing encroachments.

¶16

4.The writ petition stands disposed of, in terms of the above observation. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶17

// True Copy //

¶18

/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶19

¶20

¶21

1.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

¶22

2.The Executive Officer, Natham Town Panchayat Office, Natham,

¶23

Dindigul District.

¶24

+1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP ( SR-22366[F] dated 28/04/2022 )

¶25

W.P.(MD)No.8189 of 2012 26.04.2022

¶26

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶27

2/2

The Inspector of Wakf, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Inspector of Wakf, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balakrishnan G Vs the Commissioner

Tvl.Veyil Katha Eswari and Co. Vs the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Tvl.Veyil Vantha Ambal and Co, Vs the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

V. Chinnaiah Vs the Tahsildar

P.Chellamuthu Vs The Commissioner

Kanagaraj Vs the Joint Commissioner