Dismissed

S. Mohammed Ravoof Niftar v. Haji Pitchai Mohideen Rowther Waqf

Madras HC22 Feb 2023CRP(MD)/430/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged the dismissal of an application to strike out an original filing due to the petitioner's claim of Hereditary Muthwalli status. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that such status must be adjudicated by trial. It directed the Waqf Tribunal to dispose of the matter by 31.12.2023.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; liberty granted to raise pleadings in O.A. 52 of 2022; Waqf Tribunal directed to dispose case by 31.12.2023.

S. Mohammed Ravoof Niftar Vs Haji Pitchai Mohideen… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

CRP(MD).No.430 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 22.02.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶6

CRP(MD).No.430 of 2023 and C.M.P(MD).No.2081 of 2023

¶7

S.Mohammed Ravoof Niftar .. Petitioner/Petitioner/9^th Respondent

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.Haji Pitchai Mohideen Rowther Waqf

¶10

... 1^st Respondent/1^st Respondent/Applicant

¶11

2.Tamil Nadu Waqf Board rep., by its Chief Executive Officer, No.1, Jaffer Syrang Street, Vallal Seethakathi Nagar, Behind Customs House, Chennai 600 001.

¶12

3.S.Mohamed Kasim

¶13

4.M.Abubakar Siddique

¶14

5.S.K.Gul Mohamed

¶15

6.A.Jamal Mohamed

¶16

7.E.Abdul Samad

¶17

8.P.Sheik Mohamed

¶18

9.K.Mohamed Ghiazudeen

¶19

.. Respondents 2 to 9/

¶20

Respondents 2 to 9/Respondents 1 to 8

¶21

PRAYER : Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to allow the civil revision petition by allowing I.A.No.634 of 2022 in O.A.No.52 of 2022 dated 18.01.2023 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Waqf Tribunal, Chennai.

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

1/5

¶24

CRP(MD).No.430 of 2023

¶25

For Petitioner : Mr.Shangar Murali For Respondents : Mr.Seeni ragmath nisha (caveator for R1) Mr.G.Chandrasekar (for R2)

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The present revision petition has been filed challenging an

¶28

order passed in I.A.No.634 of 2022 in O.A.No.52 of 2022 dated 18.01.2023.

¶29

The first respondent in the revision petition had claimed Hereditary Muthwalliship for Haji Pichai Mohideen Rowthern Waqf, Palakkarai, Trichy. However, the said request of the first respondent herein was rejected by the Waqf Board by their order dated 03.06.2022. Under the same order, an Executive Committee consisting of 8 members was appointed to administer the Waqf. Challenging the said order, the first respondent herein had filed O.A.No.52 of 2022. In the cause title, the first respondent had claimed himself to be a Hereditary Muthwalli of Haji Pichai Mohideen Rowthern Waqf. Aggrieved over the said fact, one of the Executive Members appointed by the Waqf Board had filed I.A.No.634 of 2022 to strike off O.A.No.52 of 2022 on the ground that it has been filed by a wrong person. The said application was dismissed by the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board Tribunal. Challenging the same, the present revision petition has been filed.

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

2/5

¶32

CRP(MD).No.430 of 2023

¶33

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the first respondent in the revision petition/applicant in O.A.No.52 of 2022 was never a Hereditary Muthwalli of the aforesaid Waqf. He was appointed as a Muthwalli of the aforesaid Waqf only for a period of three years by the Waqf Board by their proceeding dated 23.01.2003. Therefore, the first respondent can never call himself as a Hereditary Muthwalli. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that O.A.No.52 of 2022, having been filed by a wrong person, is liable to be struck off .

¶34

The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submits

¶35

that counter has been filed by the Waqf Board and other respondents in O.A.No.52 of 2022 and the matter is lope for trial.

¶36

I carefully considered the submissions made on either side.

¶37

The apprehension of the revision petitioner is that the first

¶38

respondent calling himself as a Hereditary Muthwalli by way of incorporating the same in the cause-title to O.A.No.52 of 2022 is interfering in the administration of the Waqf, without there being any

¶39

interim orders in O.A.No.52 of 2022. The first respondent has also tried https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/5

¶40

CRP(MD).No.430 of 2023

¶41

to collect rent from the tenants of the Waqf. Therefore, it is clear that the

¶42

revision petitioner is aggrieved over the fact that the first respondent is still calling himself as a Hereditary Muthwalli as per the cause-tile in O.A.No.52 of 2022. Whether the first respondent is eligible to be a Hereditary Muthwalli or not, has to be decided after trial in O.A.No.52 of 2022. Just because the first respondent has branded himself as Hereditary Muthwalli in the cause-title, that would not confer any legal status unless it is decided so either by the Waqf Board or by the Tamil Nadu Waqf Tribunal. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid facts, the Revision Petition stands disposed of granting liberty to both parties to raise all the pleadings before the Tamil Nadu Waqf Tribunal, Chennai, in O.A.No.52 of 2022. The Tamil Nadu Waqf Tribunal, Chennai, is directed to dispose of O.A.No.52 of 2022 on or before 31.12.2023 . No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶43

22.02.2023

¶44

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Rmk

¶45

To The Tamil Nadu Waqf Tribunal, Chennai.

¶46

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶47

4/5

¶48

CRP(MD).No.430 of 2023

¶49

R.VIJAYAKUMAR ,J.,

¶50

Rmk

¶51

Order made in CRP(MD).No.430 of 2023

¶52

Dated: 22.02.2023

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶54

5/5

S. Mohammed Ravoof Niftar v. Haji Pitchai Mohideen Rowther Waqf

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Mohammed Ravoof Niftar v. Haji Pitchai Mohideen Rowther Waqf

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Natesan Housing (P) Limited., Vs G. Kalaiselvan

Karuppiah Vs K.K.M.Muthuvel (President)

Shanthi, Vs S. Arunachalam (Died), 1 Subbulakshmi

Arumugam Vs Kuruvidurai Pallivasal

Sivarampriya Vs M.Y.Jeyalakshmi

Meenakshi Sundaram Vs Umar John