Allowed

S.Ziyaullah v. Tamil Nadu Wakf Board

Madras HC5 Sept 2024WP/3438/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the proposal by Wakf authorities to convert a registered Wakf burial ground for construction of buildings. The Court held that once classified as a burial ground, such property cannot be re-classified as it is for pious, charitable and religious purposes. The proposal was held impermissible and non-est in law.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Mandamus issued forbearing respondents from developing or altering the nature of the burial ground.

S.Ziyaullah Vs Tamil Nadu Wakf Board — Madras HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

W.P.No.3438 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 05.09.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P.No.3438 of 2021 And

¶7

W.M.P.Nos.3938 and 24362 of 2021

S.Ziyaullah

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.Tamil Nadu Wakf Board

¶12

Rep. by Chief Executive Officer No.1, Jaffer Syrang Street, Valla Seethakathi Nagar,

¶13

Chennai – 1.

¶14

2.The Executive Officer/ Superintendent of Wakf, B.Hyder Burial Ground Wakf, 139, Dr.Besant Road,

¶15

Chennai.

¶16

3.The Managing Committee, B.Hyder Burial Ground Wakf, 109, Dr.Ambedkar College Road, Vyasarpadi,

¶17

Chennai – 12.

¶18

4.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Secretary, Minorities, Backward and Most Backward Class, Fort St.George,

¶19

Chennai.

¶20

...Respondents

¶21

Prayer:

¶22

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to

¶23

1/6

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.No.3438 of 2021

¶26

issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from any manner developing or altering the nature of the burial ground comprised in S.No.151 and 153 totally measuring 5 cawnies 24 grounds and 1396 sq.ft. situate at Dr.Ambedkar College Road, Vyasarpadi, Chennai, belonging to B.Hyder Burial Ground Wakf.

¶27

For Petitioner : Mr.N.A.Nassir Hussain for Mr.Mohamed Rafi

¶28

For Respondents : Mr.C.Shankar for R1 R2 – No Appearance Mr.I.Abdul Basith for R3

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

This writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from any manner developing or altering the nature of the burial ground comprised in S.Nos.151 and 153 totally measuring 5 cawnies 24 grounds and 1396 sq.ft. situate at Dr.Ambedkar College Road, Vyasarpadi, Chennai, belonging to B.Hyder Burial Ground Wakf.

¶31

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the land in S.Nos.151 and 153 totally measuring 5 cawnies 24 grounds and 1396 sq.ft. situate at Dr.Ambedkar College Road, Vyasarpadi, Chennai, belongs to B.Hyder Burial Ground Wakf. The learned counsel further submitted that B.Hyder Burial Ground bearing 2/6

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.No.3438 of 2021

¶34

Registration No.181 is a surveyed, registered, gazette Wakf under the supervisory control of the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board and further submitted that in the Government Gazette dated 20.05.1959 issued under Section 5(2) of the Wakf Act, 1954, the object of Wakf is shown as pious, Charitable and religious for the burial of Muslims. However, in the said burial ground, the respondents 1 to 3 decided to construct building and sent proposal to the Government for change of classification. The learned counsel further submitted that once a property is classified as burial ground, even the Government have no power to change its character since once burial of body is started in a property it cannot be converted to a residential property or any other property. Hence, the respondents 1 to 3 sending proposal to the Government for construction of building is not sustainable one.

¶35

3.The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the respondents 1 to 3 only sent proposal to the Government and it is for the Government to decide the change of character.

¶36

4.Admittedly, the subject property has been declared as a burial

¶37

3/6

¶38

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

¶39

W.P.No.3438 of 2021

¶40

ground. Once a property is classified as burial ground, even the Government have no power to change its character since once burial of body is started in an area, it cannot be re-classified as a residential area or commercial area and there is no provision under any Act or Rule for re-classification of burial ground. In the absence of any provision under any Act or Rule, the proposal sent by the respondents 1 to 3 to the fourth respondent is impermissible one and the said proposal is non-est in law.

¶41

5.The writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the

¶42

connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶43

05.09.2024

¶44

pri

¶45

Index: Yes/ No Speaking Order: Yes/ No NCC: Yes/ No

¶46

¶47

1.The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board Rep. by Chief Executive Officer No.1, Jaffer Syrang Street, Valla Seethakathi Nagar, Chennai – 1.

¶48

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

¶49

4/6

¶50

W.P.No.3438 of 2021

¶51

2.The Executive Officer/ Superintendent of Wakf, B.Hyder Burial Ground Wakf, 139, Dr.Besant Road, Chennai.

¶52

3.The Managing Committee, B.Hyder Burial Ground Wakf, 109, Dr.Ambedkar College Road, Vyasarpadi,

¶53

Chennai – 12.

¶54

4.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Secretary, Minorities, Backward and Most Backward Class, Fort St.George, Chennai.

¶55

5/6

¶56

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

¶57

W.P.No.3438 of 2021

¶58

M.DHANDAPANI,J. pri

¶59

W.P.No.3438 of 2021 And W.M.P.Nos.3938 and 24362 of 2021

¶60

05.09.2024

¶61

6/6

¶62

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

S.Ziyaullah v. Tamil Nadu Wakf Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Ziyaullah v. Tamil Nadu Wakf Board

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

G.Rajmohan Vs The Commissioner

A.Govindan Vs The Joint Commissioner/

Sri Govindha Yathiraaja Jeeyar Vs the Secretary

Ashok Memory (India) Private Limited Vs State Bank of India

A.Radhakrishnan Vs The Secretary to Govertment

P.Sridhar, Vs Assistant Commissioner