Dismissed

M/S.Umar Pulavar Nagar Pallivasal v. Inspector General of Registration

Madras HC1 Jul 2024WP/8068/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioner challenged refusal checkslip, arguing property was private. Court held mosque dedication brings property within Waqf Act 1995 applicable to all waqfs, registered or not. Alienation requires Board permission. Petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's writ petition seeking quashal of refusal checkslip and registration of property was dismissed.

M/S.Umar Pulavar Nagar Pallivasal Vs Inspector General of… — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

WP.No.8068 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 01.07.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

WP.No.8068 of 2022

¶7

M/s.Umar Pulavar Nagar Pallivasal Rep by its President Mr.K.Mohammed Ibrahim No.5, Umarpulavar Tindivanam, Villupuram District – 604 001 .. Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

1.The Inspector General of Registration 101, Santhome High Road Chennai – 600 028

¶10

2.The District Registrar Tindivanam, Villupuram District

¶11

3.The Joint 1 Sub Registrar Tindivanam, Villupuram District

¶12

4.The Tamil Nadu Waqf Board Rep by its Chief Executive Officer No.1, Jaffer Syrang Street Vallal Sithakathi Nagar Chennai – 600 001 .. Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records pertaining to the Inspection Memo dated 10.12.2021 bearing

¶14

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

¶15

1/8

¶16

WP.No.8068 of 2022

¶17

No.21/2021 by the 3^rd respondent and quash the same, consequently directing the 3^rd respondent to register the same.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Baskar For Respondents : Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal for R1 to R3 Additional Government Pleader Mr.M.Fakkir Mohideen for R4

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Challenge has been made to the refusal checkslip issued by the third

¶21

respondent on the ground that the property is a Waqf property.

¶22

It is the case of the writ petitioner that the petitioner purchased an

¶23

extent of 0.06 ½ cents out of 10.02 acres by sale deed dated 05.06.1989. Thereafter, the elected Jamath people of the pallivasal have constructed the Pallivasal in the vacant land. The petitioner is the President of the said Pallivasal. The Pallivasal also purchased an extent of 450 sq.ft., comprised in S.No.150/2 situated at Roshanai Hospital Road, Tindivanam. Prior gift deed also indicate that the Pallivasal officer bearer shall have right to sell the property. Hence, when the document has been presented for registration and the impugned refusal checkslip is passed. Challenging the same, this writ petition.

¶24

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

¶25

2/8

¶26

WP.No.8068 of 2022

¶27

Counter has been filed by the fourth respondent, it is their contention that the petitioner pallivasal was constructed solely from the contributions made by the muslim community in and around Tamil Nadu. It is their contention that Waqf Act, 1995 is applicable to both registered and unregistered Waqf. Hence, it is their contention since it is a Waqf property, the same cannot be alienated without the permission of the Waqf Board. Therefore, unless the petitioner obtains the permission from the Board, the property cannot be dealt.

¶28

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is only a private Pallivasal, it does not come under the Waqf Board. Therefore, Waqf Act, 1995 will not apply. Further, he submitted that since the Gift Deed provides for sale of property, they are entitled to sell the property. Whereas, the learned counsel for the fourth respondent would mainly submit that Waqf is registered or unregistered that will not make any difference, only the Waqf Act, 1995 will apply.

¶29

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. By

¶30

consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶31

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

¶32

3/8

¶33

WP.No.8068 of 2022

¶34

At the outset, this Court is of the view that such contention cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that the property has been dedicated for the purpose recognised by the Muslim law as a pious, religious or charitable use it as a mosque. Therefore, it comes within the ambit of the definition of “waqf” under Section 3 (r) of the Waqf Act, 1995. Such being the position whether the Waqf has been registered or not will not make any difference and the properties in respect of which Waqf Act is created for the purpose as defined under the Act, all the property will come under the Waqf. It is also to be noted that already the petitioner has given a letter on 01.11.2021 for registering the same as a Waqf property and the same is still pending.

¶35

Such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that once the property is dedicated and comes within the ambit as defined under the Act, without the permission of the Waqf Board, the property cannot be alienated. In this regard, this Court has also in W.P.(MD).No.10408 of 2015 in the case of Madurai Yagappanagar Muslim Jamat Noorul-Hudha Jumma Pallivasal Society Vs. The Sub Registrar and two others, dated 16.10.2015 has held as follows:

¶36

“ 13.From a reading of Section 3(r), it could be seen that

¶37

Wakf Act would apply to all the wakfs irrespective of the fact

¶38

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

¶39

4/8

¶40

WP.No.8068 of 2022

¶41

whether it is registered wakf under the Wakf Act or unregistered wakf, since all the wakfs in the State shall vest in the Board. In this regard, a reference could be placed in the judgment, relied upon by the learned counsel for the Wakf Board, reported in AIR 1985 AP 127 (Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad Vs. S.Syed Ali Mulla and others), wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh has held as follows:- “14.The following cases arising from the A.P.Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endownments Act, 1966, prior to the Amendment made to S.3-A of that Act in Sri Subramanya Bharathi Bhavana Kalasalav. Commr. Hindu Religious and Charitable Endownments A.P.Hyderabad W.A. No. 695 dt 26- 9- 1974, Nelamvari Annachatram Rajamandry v. Govt. of A.P. W.A. Nos. 86 and 542/74 dt 20-11-1974 and Nalam Ramalingaiah v. Commr. Hindu Religious and Charitable Endownments A.P.Hyderabad, W.P. No. 3156 of 1973 dt 15-4-1975 will not, therefore, have any application to cases arising under the Wakf Act, which in terms of S.2 of the Act, applies to all Wakfs whether created before or after the commencement of the Act. The

¶42

limitation cannot be imported that the Act applies only to wakfs https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

5/8

¶44

WP.No.8068 of 2022

¶45

registered under the Act and not to wakfs not registered under

¶46

Act. The general superintendence of all Wakfs in the State shall

¶47

vest in the Board established for the State irrespective of the

¶48

question whether the wakf is registered or not registered. .....”

¶49

Considering the above judgment and the property is of the Waqf Board, the petitioner merely relying on the recitals in the earlier documents cannot deal with the property without permission being obtained from the Waqf Board.

¶50