Allowed

K.Madhusudhanan v. the Sub-Registrar

Madras HC21 Nov 2025WP/16977/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the refusal to register a settlement deed. The Court held that statutory protections for Waqf properties under the Registration Act apply only if the Official Gazette lists specific survey numbers and extents. Since the Gazette omitted these details, the Waqf Board could not claim title and the register must proceed.

What did the court decide?

Declared the impugned order refusing registration liable to be set aside and directed the first respondent to register the settlement deed dated 26.07.2022 within two days and return the deed.

K.Madhusudhanan Vs the Sub-Registrar — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.No.16977 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 21.11.2025

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Honourable Mr.Justice Krishnan Ramasamy

¶5

W.P.No.16977 of 2024

¶6

and

¶7

W.M.P.Nos.18700, 18701 & 18073 of 2024

¶8

K.Madhusudhanan ...Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Sub Registrar, O/o. The Sub Registrar, Dharapuram Tiruppur District.

¶11

The Tamil Nadu Waqf Board, Rep.by Chief Executive Officer, No.1, Jaffer Syrang Street,

¶12

Vallal Seethakathi Nagar, Chennai – 600 001.

¶13

The Waqf Properties Secure & Monitoring Committee Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, Rep. by its District Incharge Alhah M.S.Mohammed Ali Jinna 2/53, Old Agraharam Street, Alangiyam Dharapuram Taluk, Tiruppur District – 638 657

¶14

1/49

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.No.16977 of 2024

¶17

4. Mr.Mohammed Iqbal

¶18

Secretary, Poorveega Sulthania Masjid Committee, (GS No.131) Alangium, Dharapuram Taluk, Tiruppur District.

¶19

(R.-4 impleaded as per order passed by this Court in W.M.P.No.22147 of 2024 of this WP dt. 10.01.2025.

¶20

...Respondents

¶21

Prayer :-

¶22

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings No.208/2024 dated 16.05.2024 and to quash the same and consequently, to direct the first respondent to register the settlement deed presented by the petitioner on 26.07.2022 in Temporary No.TP/127342650/2022 and return back the Settlement Deed to the petitioner.

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr.Vijay Narayan Senior Counsel for Mr.C.Prakasam

¶24

For Respondent-1 : Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal Additional Government Pleade

¶25

r For Respondent-2 : Mr.S.Haja Mohideen Gisthi

¶26

2/49

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.No.16977 of 2024

¶29

For Respondent-3 : Mr.H.Mohammed Ghouse

¶30

For Respondent-4 : Mr.S.Selvathirumugan

¶31

Order

¶32

The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the order passed by the first

¶33

respondent vide proceedings dated 16.05.2024 and to quash the same and

¶34

consequently, to direct the first respondent to register the settlement deed

¶35

presented by the petitioner on 26.07.2022 in favour of his wife and return

¶36

back the Settlement Deed to the petitioner.

¶37

2. I have abbreviated the facts of the case by restricting it only to

¶38

the relevant details:-

¶39

i) The Settlement Tahsildar, Coimbatore, vide order dated 15.11.1973, declared that one Lazum Huq, S/o Kazhi S.Sahul, is entitled to

¶40

3/49

¶41

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

¶42

W.P.No.16977 of 2024 the grant of ryotwari patta, in respect of a property, comprised in S.No.407, measuring an extent of 36.42 acres of wet land situated at Alingiyam, Village, Dharapuram Taluk, The said order passed by the Settlement Tahsildar was challenged by the fourth respondent by way of an Appeal before the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams Tribunal, Coimbatore (Principal Sub Judge) in C.M.A.No.4 of 1987. The said Appeal was dismissed on the aspect of limitation. No challenge was made as against the said dismissal. Subsequently, the aforesaid property was conveyed by A.S.Bajlul in favour of S.S.Abdul Salam, by way of a sale deed dated 30.03.1985.

¶43

ii) Thereafter, a suit in O.S.No.69 of 1988 was filed by the respondent-Wakf Board before the Sub Court, Dharapuram, for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the property in S.No.401 and vide judgment and decree dated 08.11.1990, the suit was dismissed. Subsequently, on 23.06.1984, a sale deed was executed by S.S.Abdul Salam, conveying the entire extent of property in S.No.401 in favour of one Kanchanamala. In the meantime, an Appeal was preferred by the second respondent-Wakf Board as against the judgment passed in the Original Suit, in A.S.No.476 of 1994 and this Court vide judgement and decree dated 03.07.2002, dismissed the Appeal for default.

¶44

4/49

¶45

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

¶46

W.P.No.16977 of 2024

¶47

iii) Subsequently, on 17.06.2021, the said Kanchanamala out of the larger extent of 36.42 ares of land in R.S.No.182/1 (Old S.No.401) executed a) sale deed in favour of R.Sabapathy and S.Santhamani, conveying an extent of 18.46 acres, b) another portion of land, measuring an extent of 7.1 acres was conveyed in favour of K.Madhusudhanan (petitioner herein) by executing sale deed on the same date, c) remaining portion of land measuring to an extent of 4.7 acres of land was conveyed by the said Kanchamala in favour of R.Sabapahty, K.Madhusudhanan, N.Kathiresan and R.Vanitha by executing sale deed on the same date (17.06.2021). After such purchase, all the purchasers earmarked the pathway in the said land to enable the purchasers to utilize the land and all of them jointly laid down the pathway to the extent of 1.46 acres.

¶48

iv) Thereafter, on 17.02.2022, that the said R.Sabapathy and S.Santhamani executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner conveying an extent of 50 cents out of 18.46 acres in New R.S.No.182/1A1. Later on, i.e. on 26.07.2022, the petitioner intended to settle the property in favour of his wife and presented a settlement deed for registration. But, the first respondent vide a Refusal Check Slip dated 26.07.2022 refused to register

¶49

5/49

¶50

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

¶51

W.P.No.16977 of 2024 the settlement deed by citing the reason that the second respondent-Waqf Board by virtue a communication dated 21.02.2022 instructed the first respondent not to register any document in respect of property comprised in S.No.401 by stating that property as 'Waqf Property'.

¶52

v) Challenging such refusal, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition before this Court in W.P.No.23261 of 2022 (first Writ Petition) and this Court, vide order dated 30.08.2022, set aside the Refusal Check Slip issued by the first respondent and remanded the matter back to the first respondent and directed him to issue notice to all the persons, including the petitioner to appear for enquiry fixing a date and hear all the parties on the fixed date and thereafter, to pass orders within 12 weeks.

¶53

vi) Pursuant to the said order passed by this Court dated 30.08.2022, an enquiry was conducted after due notice to the parties concerned and the first respondent vide order dated 23.11.2022 directed the petitioner to obtain NOC from the second respondent-Waqf Board, against which, the petitioner filed another Writ Petition in W.P.No.9357 of 2023 (second Writ Petition) and this Court vide order dated 19.03.2024, directed the first respondent to issue fresh notice to all the interested parties and conduct enquiry and to pass 6/49

¶54

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

¶55

W.P.No.16977 of 2024 orders within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order As per the direction issued in first Writ Petition dated 30.08.2022. Under these circumstances, the impugned order is passed by the first respondent refusing to register the settlement deed vide order dated 16.05.2024.

¶56

vii) Challenging the said order dated 16.05.2024 passed by the first

¶57

respondent, the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶58

3. Mr.Vijay Narayan, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner

¶59

would submit that in terms of Section 5 (2) of the Waqf Act, 1954, the State

¶60

Government, on receipt of report from the Survey Commissioner of Waqf,

¶61

shall forward a copy of the said report to the Waqf Board; that the Board

¶62

after examination of such report, shall send it back to the Government for

¶63

publication in the Official Gazatte, mentioning the details of list of waqfs, as

¶64

per sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Wakf Act, viz., i) Name of Wakf, ii)

¶65

7/49

¶66

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

¶67

W.P.No.16977 of 2024 Name of the Village, iii) Nature and objects of Wakf, iv) Gross income of

¶68

the properties in the Wakf, v) Accounts of land revenue, cess, taxes payable

¶69

in respect of properties and vi) Expenses incurred in realization of the income and other remuneration of the muthavalli of the wakf; that the learned Senior Counsel also referred to the usual format prescribed for publication of list of wakf properties in the Official Gazette, wherein, the particulars (as described above) used to be mentioned in six columns; that in the present case, though in the Gazatte publication dated 03.06.1959, details of list of wakf properties were mentioned in six columns, as per the prescribed format, but, the exact details, which are necessary for identifying the ownership of the property, viz., survey number and to what extent, the Wakf-Board owes its title were not mentioned and only name of the village, viz., Alingiam is mentioned.

¶70

3.1 Therefore, it is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for

¶71

8/49

¶72

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

¶73

W.P.No.16977 of 2024 the petitioner that whenever the respondent-Waqf Board published list of

¶74

Waqfs in the gazatte notification, the same should contain the details of survey number and extent, which is mandatory in terms of sub-section 3 of Section 4 of the Act; that if the list of wakfs does not contain such particulars

¶75

(viz., survey number and extent), the same would not be construed by any Court of law as list of wakfs as mandated under Section 5 (2) of the Wakf Act, 1954 and statutory recognition provided under Section 22-A of the Registration Act would not extended to the Wakf Board and any person can claim right over the property, and in terms of Section 6 (1) of the said Act,

¶76

any dispute arises with regard to the right/title over the wakf property, the Wakq Board has to institute a suit within a period of one year from the date

¶77

of publication of the list of wakfs.

¶78

3.2 The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submitted

¶79

9/49

¶80

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

¶81

W.P.No.16977 of 2024 that though as per the Proforma Report of the Wakf, the second respondent-

¶82

Wakf Board claims right over the property at Dharapuram Taluk in Alingiam

¶83

Village, in the absence of any particulars with regard to the survey number and actual extent of the property, mentioning the name of the Village is not sufficient for the Wakf Board to trace title/right over the property. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also referred to the provisions of Waqf Act, 1995 and contended that in Section 5, sub-section 3 was inserted

¶84

with an object to mutate the land records by taking into consideration of the list of wakfs published in the Official Gazatte; that in the event of no such

¶85

details (viz., survey number and extent of the properties) were mentioned in

¶86

the list of waks, it is impossible for the Revenue Authorities to mutate the

¶87

revenue records.

¶88

3.3 Therefore, it is contended by the learned Senior Counsel that

¶89

certainly, there is an obligation on the part of the Wakf Board to publish list

¶90

10/49

¶91

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

¶92

W.P.No.16977 of 2024 of wakfs containing the particulars such as extent, survey number, once such

¶93

details are mentioned in the gazatte notification, proving their ownership of

¶94

the property, automatically, statutory protection is granted to them in terms

¶95

of Section 22-A of the Registration Act and no other person can claim right over the property, unless and otherwise, such persons establishes their title

¶96

through the Civil Court, but in the absence of any particulars with regard to

¶97

the survey number and extent of the property, any third party can claim right

¶98

over the property and the Wafk Board has to establish their title before this Civil Court and that, in the present case, the burden shifts on the Waqf Board

¶99

to establish their title, since, the petitioner's vendor's vendor, enjoyed the

¶100

property for almost 60 years over.

¶101

3.4 The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submitted

¶102

that, looking at from any perspective, the respondent-Wakf Board cannot

¶103

have right over the subject property, inasmuch as, the issue with regard the

¶104

11/49

¶105

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

¶106

W.P.No.16977 of 2024 right/title/ over the subject property had already attained finality, as the order

¶107

passed by the Settlement Tahsildar dated 15.11.1973, granting ryotwari patta

¶108

in respect of the property in S.No.401 in favour of Lazum Huq, S/o Kazhi S.Sahul was challenged by the fourth respondent in C.M.A.No.4 of 1987 and

¶109

the same was dismissed; subsequently, a suit was filed by the respondent-

¶110

Waqf Board before the Sub Court, Dharapuram, in O.S.No.69 of 1988, for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the property in S.No.401

¶111

and the Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 08.11.1990 dismissed

¶112

the suit holding that the said property exclusively belong to A.S.Bajlul Huq;

¶113

that though as against the judgment, Appeal was preferred by the respondent-Waqf Board, in A.S.No.476 of 1994, the same was also dismissed vide judgement and decree dated 03.07.2002 and there was no further Appeal as against the said judgement.

¶114

3.5 Finally, it is contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the

¶115

12/49

¶116

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

¶117

W.P.No.16977 of 2024 petitioner that the Wakf Board is not entitled to the benefit of statutory bar

¶118

provided under Section 22-A of the Registration Act,1908, as in the list of

¶119

wafks published in the Official gazette dated 03.06.1959, the survey number and extent of the property were not mentioned, and hence, the Registering

¶120

Authority shall proceed to register the document presented by the petitioner dated 26.07.2022 without any hesitation and prays for appropriate orders to

¶121

be passed in that regard. The learned Senior Counsel also relied on a recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of K.Gopi Vs. Sub

¶122

Register reported in (2025) S.C.C. Online SC 740, wherein, the powers conferred on the Registering Authority for registration of document under

¶123

Section 22-A of the Registration (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act 2008 is enumerated.

¶124

4. Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal, learned Additional Government Pleader for

¶125

the first respondent, Registering Authority would submit that since the

¶126

13/49

¶127

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

¶128

W.P.No.16977 of 2024 second respondent-Waqf Board by virtue a communication dated 21.02.2022

¶129

instructed the first respondent not to register any document in respect of property comprised in S.No.401 by stating that the said property as 'Waqf Property', the first respondent has refused to register the settlement deed presented by the petitioner dated 26.07.2022; that aggrieved by such refusal, though the petitioner has approached this Court twice, whereby, the first respondent was directed to pass orders after issuing to all the interested

¶130

parties concerned and conducting enquiry, the first respondent, in compliance of the orders passed in the Wit Petition conducted enquiry by issuing notice to the parties concerned; that during such enquiry, since the first respondent received objection from the Masjid Committee vide letter dated 13.04.2022 so also a letter of objection dated 04.05.2022 from the third respondent, Waqf Properties Secure & Monitoring Committee, the first respondent refused to register the settlement deed presented by the petitioner

¶131

and passed the impugned order dated 16.05.2024 and therefore, submitted

¶132

14/49

¶133

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

¶134

W.P.No.16977 of 2024

¶135

that if at all, the petitioner claims right over the subject property, certainly,

¶136

he has to relegated to approach the Civil Court to establish his right/title over

¶137

the property in the manner known to law.

¶138

5. Mr.S.Haja Mohideen Gisthi, learned counsel for the second

¶139

respondent-Wakf Board produced Proforma report and other Inam Register maintained by the Wakf Board before this Court and pyramids his

¶140

submission by stating that in terms of sub-section 3 of Section 4 of the Wakf

¶141

Act, the Survey Commissioner of Wakf Board made enquiries and submitted

¶142

a report to the Government, which was examined by the Board and

¶143

forwarded it to the the Government for publication in the Official Gazette;

¶144

that, accordingly, as per Section 5 (2) of the Wakf Act, the list of wakfs were

¶145

published in the Official Gazette Notification dated 03.06.1959, containing

¶146

the particulars, as mentioned in sub-section 3 of Section 4 of the Act; that as

¶147

regards the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that

¶148

15/49

¶149

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

¶150

W.P.No.16977 of 2024 only village name was mentioned in the list of wafks, but not the survey

¶151

number and extent of the property is concerned, the learned counsel drawn the attention of this Court to the gazette notification dated 03.06.1959, annexed at page No.16 of the Type-set of papers and submits that, in page

¶152

No.17 of the said notification, the details of survey number, extent of the subject property were mentioned in the respective columns at fifth and sixth rows and therefore, submits that statutory bar under Section 22-A of the Registration Act would apply to the Wakf Board.

¶153

5.1 Further, the learned counsel referred to the Proforma Report and submits that the subject property belongs to Alingiam Town Kazi Service Inam Wakf through T.D.No.1425 dated 16.04.1863 and notified as wakf bearing G.S.No.132/CB3 and hence, no person can claim title over the same without the approval of the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board that though the petitioner's vendor's vendor has traced right over the property on the strength

¶154

16/49

¶155

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

¶156

W.P.No.16977 of 2024 of the order passed by the Settlement Tahsildar dated 15.11.1973, wherein, it

¶157

is declared that one Lazum Huq, S/o Kazhi S.Sahul, was entitled to the grant

¶158

of ryotwari patta, in respect of subject property, comprised in S.No.407,

¶159

situated at Alingiyam, Village, Dharapuram, the said order of Settlement Tahsildar, Coimbatore dated 15.11.1973 was passed as against the Section 21 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act; that, in terms of said Section 21, service holder is entitled to hold service inam property and ryotwari patta, if the service holder continued to do the service and if he fails to render such service, the right to hold the land

¶160

shall cease and the Wakf Board is entitled to hold the land as it's absolute

¶161

property, and in the present case, when the service holder does not fulfill the condition to hold the land, entire property reverted to the Wakf Board and the character of the property cannot be changed and that once the property having been found as wakf, it would always retain its character as a wakf. In

¶162

support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on a decision

¶163

17/49

¶164

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

¶165

W.P.No.16977 of 2024 rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sayeed Ali Vs.A.P.

¶166

Wakf Board, reported in (1998) S.C.C. 642.

¶167

5.2 Further, it is contended by the learned counsel for the second

¶168

respondent-Waif Board that since one A.S.Bajlul Huq, son of later Kazi Haji Sagul Hameed sold extent of the subject property in favour of S.S.Abdul Saleem, a suit in O.S.No.69 of 1988 was filed by the respondent-Waqf Board

¶169

before the Sub Court, Dharapuram/Trial Court for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the property in S.No.401, however, the Trial Court

¶170

based on the order of the Settlement Tahsildar dated 15.11.1973, dismissed

¶171

the suit vide judgment and decree dated 08.11.1990; that though as against the judgment passed in the Original Suit dated 08.11.1990, First Appeal was filed by the respondent-Waqf Board, this Court vide judgement and decree dated 03.07.2002, dismissed the Appeal for default, on account of non-

¶172

payment of batta, which was purely due to collusion of the Wakf Board with

¶173

18/49

¶174

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

¶175

W.P.No.16977 of 2024

¶176

the petitioner.

¶177

5.3 Finally, the learned counsel for the second respondent-Wakf

¶178

Board finally summed up his arguments by stating that as per Section 5 (2)

¶179

of the Wakf Act, the list of wakfs were published in the Official Gazette Notification dated 03.06.1959, containing the particulars, as mentioned in

¶180

sub-section 3 of Section 4 of the Act, in respective columns at fifth and sixth

¶181

rows ; that further, as per the Proforma Report of this Wakf, the property

¶182

belongs to Alingium Town Kazi Service Inam Wakf, and that, once the

¶183

property is surveyed and notified as wakf, no person can claim title over the

¶184

same without the approval of the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board. Therefore, it is contended that the statutory protection under the Wakf Act is provided to the

¶185

Wakf Board to claim right over the property and therefore, prays for

¶186

dismissal of the Writ Petition.

¶187

19/49

¶188

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

¶189

W.P.No.16977 of 2024 5.4 In support of his case, the learned counsel referred to two

¶190

reported judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and two unreported

¶191

judgements of this Court and one unreported decision of the High Court of

¶192

of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jodhpur, the details of which are as follows:-

¶193

''a) Sudha Ravi Kumar and Another Vs. The

¶194

Special Commissioner and others reported in (2017) SCC Online Mad 19191;

¶195

b) Rashid Wali Beg Vs. Farid Pindari and

¶196

others reported in (2022) 4 SCC 414;

¶197

c) V.Govindharaji and others Vs. the District

¶198

Collector and others rendered by this Court in W.P.No.13718 of 2023 dated 20.06.2023;

¶199

d) Mrs.K.Annapooshanam Vs. the Inspector

¶200

General of Registration and others. rendered by this Court in W.P.No.8457 of 2023 dated 05.07.2023.

¶201

and

¶202

e) Shakur Shah Vs. Eliyas and others

¶203

rendered in S.B.Civil Revision Petition No.189 of

¶204

20/49

¶205

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

¶206

W.P.No.16977 of 2024

¶207

2023, dated 20.02.2023.''

¶208

6. However, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has

¶209

raised objection by contending that the details of survey number and extent of the property, referred to by the second respondent-Wakf Board at Page

¶210

No.17 of the Official gazette Notification published on 03.06.1959, in fifth

¶211

and sixth rows under respective columns were handwritten and were

¶212

interpolated by the Wakf-Board to suit their own purpose, and in the Original gazette notification, dated 03.06.1959, there were no such details with regard

¶213

to the survey number and extent of the property, and therefore, submits that

¶214

the document annexed at Page No.16 of the Typed-set of papers filed in

¶215

support of the Implead Petition filed by the fourth respondent is a tampered

¶216

and need not be relied on.

¶217

7. Mr.S.Selvathirumugan, learned counsel for the fourth respondent

¶218

while adopting the arguments putforth by the learned counsel for the second 21/49

¶219

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

¶220

W.P.No.16977 of 2024 respondent-Wakf Board, would submit that in terms of Section 6 of the Act,

¶221

if any disputes arises with regard to the title of the property mentioned in the

¶222

list of wakfs, either the Wakf Board or any person interested in such property, has to be relegated to the Civil Court to agitate the issue of ownership over the property and the decision of the Civil Court in respect of such matter would be final and therefore, prays for appropriate orders in that

¶223

regard.

¶224

8. I have consciously heard the arguments advanced by Mr.Vijay

¶225

Narayan, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.L.S.M.Hasan

¶226

Fizal, learned Additional Government Pleader for first

¶227

respondent/Registering Authority, Mr.S.Haja Mohideen Gisthi, learned counsel for second respondent-Wakf Board, Mr.H.Mohammed Ghouse, learned counsel for the third respondent-Wakf Committee and Mr.S.Selvathirumugan, learned counsel for the fourth respondent and

¶228

22/49

¶229

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

¶230

W.P.No.16977 of 2024

¶231

perused the materials available on record.

¶232

9. When the matter is taken up for hearing, initially, a contention has

¶233

been raised by all the learned counsel appearing for the parties that this

¶234

Court, while sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution is conferred with only limited power to deal on the aspect of Wakf Board's entitlement over the Wakf Properties, since, Wakf Tribunal is the primary forum for deciding

¶235

such disputes, and only in exceptional circumstances, where, the fundamental rights are violated or gross injustice occurs, the High Court can,

¶236

either on its own motion or on the application of the Board, or any person aggrieved, call for and examine the records, relating to any dispute, question

¶237

or other matter and scrutinize the same, even in such case, if the dispute is required to be adjudicated, the High Court can interfere only to the extent of proving the title, where, the title has already been decided, for the purpose of satisfying itself, as to the correctness, legality or propriety of such

¶238

23/49

¶239

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

¶240

W.P.No.16977 of 2024 determination and may confirm, reverse or modify such determination or

¶241

pass such order, as it may think fit and also cited Authorities in support of

¶242

the said contention.

¶243

10. At this stage, it is apposite to refer Section 22-A of the

¶244

Registration (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2008, which is extracted as

¶245

under:-

¶246

“ 22-A. Refusal to register certain documents:-

¶247

Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act,

¶248

the registering officer shall refuse to register any of the

¶249

following documents, namely:—

¶250

(i)...

¶251

(ii) ... (iii) ...

¶252

(iv) of Wakfs which are under the superintendence of

¶253

the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board established under the Wakf

¶254

Act, 1995, unless a sanction in this regard issued by the

¶255

competent authority as provided under the relevant Act

¶256

24/49

¶257

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

¶258

W.P.No.16977 of 2024 or in the absence of any such authority, an authority so authorised by the State Government for this purpose, is produced before the registering officer; (2) instrument relating to the transfer of ownership of lands converted as house sites without the permission for development of such land from planning authority concerned: Provided that the house sites without such permission may be registered if it is shown that the same house site has been previously registered as house site. ' '

¶259

11. Thus, a reading of Section 22-A, clause iv) makes it clear that, in respect of properties, which are under the superintendence of the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, a sanction is required from the competent authority to be produced before the Registering Authority. Admittedly, in the present case, no sanction was accorded and only objection was raised from the Wakf Board for registration of the subject property vide letter dated 22.01.2022 instructing the first respondent not to register any document in respect of property comprised in S.No.401 by stating that property as 'Waqf Property'.

¶260

25/49

¶261

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

¶262

W.P.No.16977 of 2024

¶263

12. Further, this Court, being obvious of the fact that the issue has

¶264

attained finality by virtue of the judgment passed by the Civil Court, and further considering the fact that this case has a checkered history, as, the petitioner has approached this Court twice feeling aggrieved over the refusal on the part of the first respondent, Registering Authority to register the settlement deed presented by the petitioner; that during the first round of litigation, in W.P.No.23261 of 2022, the refusal was made on the basis of objection of Wakf-Board letter dated 22.01.2022 and this Court vide order

¶265

dated 30.08.2022,set aside the order impugned therein and remanded the matter to the first respondent for re-consideration and ii) during the second round of litigation, viz., in W.P.No.9357 of 2023, since the petitioner was

¶266

directed by the first respondent to obtain NOC from Wakf-Board for registration and this Court vide order dated 19.03.2024, directed the first respondent to consider the issue after hearing all the interest parties, and

¶267

26/49

¶268

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

¶269

W.P.No.16977 of 2024 despite the fact that this Court vide orders dated 30.08.2022 and 19.03.2024,

¶270

passed in such respective Writ Petitions directed the first respondent to

¶271

conduct enquiry by issuing notice to the parties concerned and thereafter, to pass orders by fixing specific time frame; that the first respondent passed a similar order dated 16.05.2024, thereby, refusing to register the document presented by the petitioner, and this time, such refusal is made on the letters received from the fourth respondent-Masjid Committee vide letter dated 13.04.2022 so also a letter of objection dated 04.05.2022 from the third respondent, Waqf Properties Secure & Monitoring Committee, which constrained the petitioner to approach this Court for the third time, is inclined to venture into the aspect of declaration of title over the subject property, as the petitioner has not been mete with justice so far and knocked the doors of this Court for the third time.

¶272

13. The issue that falls for consideration in this Writ Petition as to

¶273

27/49

¶274

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

¶275

W.P.No.16977 of 2024 whether the petitioner is entitled to seek for registration of the property,

¶276

comprised in S.No.401, measuring 50 cents out of 18.46 acres situated at

¶277

Dharapuram Taluk, Alingiam Village, in favour of his wife or not.

¶278

14. To answer the said issue, firstly, it has to be seen as to whether

¶279

the property in dispute, viz., the property, comprised in S.No.401, measuring a extent of 50 cents out of total extent of 36.42 acres situated at Dharapuram

¶280

Taluk, Alingiam Village, falls under the category of Wakf, as claimed by the

¶281

second respondent-Wakf Board or belongs to the petitioner by virtue of a sale deed executed in his favour by R.Sabapathy and S.Santhamani, registered as Document No.1711 of 2022. However, this Court before proceeding to decide the said issue, is of the view that it would be apposite

¶282

to refer to the definition of the term, ''Wakf'' described in Section 3 (l) of Muslim Wakf Act, 1954, Section 5(2) and 6 (1) and proviso therein, as, a

¶283

reading of the said provisions, would succour this Court to arrive at a fine

¶284

28/49

¶285

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

¶286

W.P.No.16977 of 2024

¶287

conclusion, and the said provisions are as follows:-

¶288

Section 3 (l) ''Wakf'' means the permanent dedication by a person professing Islam [ or any other person] of any movable or immovable property for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and includes -

¶289

(i) a wakf by user; [ but such wakf shall not cease to be a wakf by reason only of the user having ceased irrespective of the period of such cesser]

¶290

(ii) grants (including mashrut-ul-khidmat) for any purpose recognised by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable;

¶291

and

¶292

(iii) a wakf-alal-aulad

¶293

and ''Wakif'' means any person making such dedication.

¶294

[Provided that in the case of a dedication by a person not professing Islam, the Wakf shall be void if, on the death of such person, any obligation to such dedication is raised by one or more of his legal representatives]

¶295

(la) ''Wakf Commissioner'' means the Wakf Commissioner appointed under sub-section (1) of

¶296

29/49

¶297

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

¶298

W.P.No.16977 of 2024

¶299

Section 21]

¶300

(m) ''Wakf Deed'' means any deed or instrument by which a wakf has been created and includes any valid subsequent deed or instrument by which any of the terms of the original dedication have been varied.''

¶301

Section 5 (2)

¶302

''The Board shall examine the report forwarded to it under sub-section (1) and publish, in the Official Gazette, a list of wakfs 2*[existing in the State, or as the case may be, the part of the State, whether in existence at the commencement of this Act or coming into existence thereafter) to which the report relates, and ] containing such particulars as may be prescribed.''

¶303

and

¶304

- Section 6 (1) :

¶305

If any question arises (whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs published under sub-section 2 of section 5 is wakf property or not whether a wakf specified in such list is a shia wakf or sunni wakf] the board or the muthawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a civil court of competent

¶306

30/49

¶307

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

¶308

W.P.No.16977 of 2024 jurisdiction for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil court in respect of such matter shall be final;

¶309

provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil court after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under sub-section (2) of section 5.''

¶310

15. Thus, a conjoint reading of Section 3(l), 5 (2) and 6 (1) and

¶311

proviso thereto, makes it clear that, any property, either movable or

¶312

immovable, that has been dedicated by a person professing Islam (or any other person, as the case may be) for the purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable, such property is called as ''Wakf Property'' and in terms of Section 5(2) certainly, there is an obligation on the part of the Wakf Board to publish list of movable and immovable properties, containing the particulars such as extent, survey number, once such details

¶313

are mentioned in the Gazatte notification, no third party right would be

¶314

created over the property and that, as per section 6 (2) any dispute arises 31/49

¶315

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

¶316

W.P.No.16977 of 2024 with regard to the title of the wakf property, either the Board or the interested

¶317

person has to institute a suit before the civil court and judgment of the civil

¶318

court is final, provided such a suit has to be instituted within a period of one

¶319

year from the date of publication of the gazatte.

¶320

16. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner

¶321

that, in terms of sub-section 3 of Section 4 of the Wakf Act, 1954, the Survey

¶322

Commissioner of Wakf Board has to make enquiries and submit a report to

¶323

the Government, which shall forward the same to the Board for examination and after such examination, the Wakf Board has to forward the said report to

¶324

the Government for publication in the Official Gazette containing the particulars, as mentioned in sub-section 3 of Section 4 of the Act. The learned Senior Counsel also referred to the format prescribed for publication of list of wakf properties in the Official Gazette under the six columns,

¶325

which is as under:

¶326

32/49

¶327

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

¶328

W.P.No.16977 of 2024

¶329

Supplement TO PART II

¶330

THE FORT ST. GEORGE GAZETTE

¶331

No. 22-A] MADRAS, WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3, 1959 (JYAISTHA 13, 1891)

¶332

¶333

NOTIFICATIONS BY HEADS OF DEPARTMENTS, ETC.

¶334

GENERAL NOTIVIGATIONS.

¶335

LIST OF WAKIS EXISTING IN MADRAS STATE

¶336

In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Muslims Wakfs Act, 1959, (Central Act, XXIX of 1954) , the Board of Wakfs hereby publishes the list of wakfs existing in the district of Coimbatore.

¶337

Name of	Name of	Nature and	Gross	Accounts of	Expenses
Wakfs	the Village	object of the wakf	income of	land	incurred in
			the	revenue,	realization
			properties	cess, taxes	of the
			in the Wakf	payable in	income and
			and	respect of	other
			muthavalli	wakf	remuneratio
			of the wakf	properties	n of the

¶338

17. In the present case, as per Section 5 (2) of the Wakf Act, the list

¶339

of wakfs were published in the Official Gazette Notification dated

¶340

33/49

¶341

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

¶342

W.P.No.16977 of 2024 03.06.1959, mentioning the details of the properties under the six columns,

¶343

bearing the headings, viz., i) Name of Wakf, ii) Name of the Village, iii) Nature and objects of Wakf iv) Gross income of the properties in the Wakf and v) Accounts of land revenue, cess, taxes payable in respect of properties

¶344

and vi) Expenses incurred in realization of the income and other remuneration of the muthavalli of the wakf.

¶345

18. However, the learned Senior Counsel pointed out that though list

¶346

of wakfs published in the Official Gazatte contains the particulars, as described above in the tabular column, but, the exact details, which are necessary for identifying the ownership of the property, viz., survey number and to what extent, the Wakf-Board owes its title were conspicuously missing and only the name of the village, viz., Alingiam is mentioned. Thus, in the absence of any particulars with regard to the survey number and actual

¶347

extent of the property, and merely mentioning the name of the Village is not

¶348

34/49

¶349

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

¶350

W.P.No.16977 of 2024 sufficient for the Wakf Board to trace title/right over the property.

¶351

19. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel

¶352

for the petitioner, there is an obligation on the part of the Wakf Board to

¶353

publish list of wakfs containing the particulars such as extent, survey

¶354

number, once such details are mentioned in the gazatte notification, proving

¶355

their ownership of the property, automatically, statutory protection under

¶356

Section 22-A is granted to them and no other person can claim right over the

¶357

property, unless and otherwise, such persons established their title through

¶358

the Civil Court, but in the absence of any particulars with regard to the

¶359

survey number and extent of the property, any third party can claim right

¶360

over the property and the Wakf Board has to establish their title/right over

¶361

the property. Further, in terms of Section 6 of the Wakf Act, 1954, if any

¶362

dispute arises with regard to the title of the Wakf Property, the objector has

¶363

to institute a suit within a period of one year from the date of publication of

¶364

35/49

¶365

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

¶366

W.P.No.16977 of 2024

¶367

the list of wakfs.

¶368

20. Thus, from the details of list of wakfs published in the Gazette

¶369

notification dated 03.06.1959, no one can arrive at a conclusion that the

¶370

subject property belongs to Wakf Board as survey number and extent of the

¶371

property were conspicuously missing.

¶372

21. In fact, this Court, in an identical issue, viz., in W.P.No.29599 of

¶373

2025, wherein, the dispute with regard to the property mentioned in list of

¶374

Wakfs published in the Gazatte Notification dated 11.02.1959 arose for

¶375

consideration, held as follows:-

¶376

''Once, the details of property, such as extent, survey number and name of the Village are declared in the Official Gazette, the statutory protection under the Wakf Act is provided to the Wakf Board to claim right over the property and the bar under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 would apply to the Wakf Board, and in the event of failure on the part of the Board to provide in the list of Wakfs, extent, survey number

¶377

36/49

¶378

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

¶379

W.P.No.16977 of 2024

¶380

and village etc., details in the Gazette publication, the statutory protection under the said Act will not be enured to the Wakf Board to claim right over the property and the bar under Section 22-A of the Registration Act would not apply and it is for the Wakf Board to establish their right over the property by approaching Civil Court and agitate the issue in the manner known to law.''

¶381

22. Thus, in present case, the burden shifts on the Waqf Board to establish their title, since, the petitioner's vendor's vendor, enjoyed the property for almost 60 years of time. Further, in Section 5 of the Wakf Act 1995, sub-section 3 was inserted with an object to mutate the land records by taking into consideration of the list of wakfs published in the Official Gazatte; that in the event of no such details (viz., survey number and extent of the properties) are mentioned in the list of waks, it is highly impossible

¶382

for the Revenue Authorities to mutate the revenue records.

¶383

23. Though the learned counsel for the second respondent-Wakf

¶384

37/49

¶385

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

¶386

W.P.No.16977 of 2024 Board has drawn the attention of this Court to the Gazette Notification

¶387

issued by the Government dated 03.06.1959, which is annexed at Page

¶388

No.16 of the Typed Set of Papers filed in support of the Implead Petition filed by the fourth respondent, more particularly, at page No.17, and states that the details of Village name, survey number and extent were mentioned in the fifth and sixth rows, by highlighting the same in green colour, as rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the details mentioned in the fifth and sixth rows were interpolated by the respondent-Wakf Board to suit their own purpose, as, the same were handwritten and the said document is a tampered one and cannot be relied on, since, in the Original gazette notification, dated 03.06.1959, and in the format, there were no such details, as that was referred to by the learned counsel for the second respondent-Wakf Board at page No.17 of the gazatte notification dated 03.06.1959. Thus, it could be easily inferred that the Gazatte Notification produced on the side of the respondent-Wakf Board so

¶389

38/49

¶390

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

¶391

W.P.No.16977 of 2024

¶392

as to prove that the details of survey number of the property and extent were

¶393

mentioned were concocted documents and cannot be relied on.

¶394

24. Similarly, the Proforma Report relied on by the second

¶395

respondent-Wakf Board so as to state that the subject property belongs to

¶396

Alingiam Town Kazi Service Inam Wakf and notified as wakf, is also of no avail to the respondent-Wakf Board, in the absence of particulars with regard

¶397

to survey number and extent of the property, in the official gazatte. Likewise, the reliance placed by the second respondent-Wakf Board on a decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sayeed Ali

¶398

Vs.A.P. Wakf Board, reported in (1998) S.C.C. 642, in support of contention, that, once the property is a wakf, always a wakfs, character of

¶399

the property cannot be changed and grant of patta in favour of Lazam Huq by the Settlement Tahsildar under Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) does not, in any manner, nullify

¶400

39/49

¶401

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

¶402

W.P.No.16977 of 2024 the earlier dedication made of the property constituting the same as wakf;

¶403

that after a wakf has been created, it continued to be so for all the time to

¶404

come and further continues to be governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act and a grant of patta in favour of Lazam Huq does not affect the original

¶405

character of the wakf property, is also not applicable to the facts of the

¶406

present case.

¶407

25. Though Section 22-A (iv) of the Registration (Tamil Nadu

¶408

Amendment) Act, 2008, restrains the Registering Authority from registering

¶409

any document as mentioned in clause iv) viz., Wakf property unless and until, a sanction is accorded from the competent Authority, (Wakf Board in this case) the question of provision of statutory recognition for Wakf property would come into picture only when the details of property such as survey and extent are clearly mentioned in the list of wakfs published in the

¶410

official gazette notification, in the absence of the same, the statutory bar

¶411

40/49

¶412

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

¶413

W.P.No.16977 of 2024 under Section 22-A would not apply to the Wakf Board, and if at all, the

¶414

Wakf Board claims right over the subject property, certainly, they have to be relegated to approach the Civil Court to establish their right/title over the property in the manner known to law, till then, the bar under Section 22-A will not apply.

¶415

26. Further, as rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel

¶416

for the petitioner, looking at things from any perspective, the respondentWakf Board cannot have right over the subject property, inasmuch as, the issue with regard to the right/title over the subject property had already attained finality, as the order passed by the Settlement Tahsildar dated 15.11.1973, granting ryotwari patta in respect of the property in S.No.401 in favour of Lazum Huq, S/o Kazhi S.Sahul was challenged by the fourth respondent in C.M.A.No.4 of 1987 and the same was dismissed; subsequently, a suit was filed by the respondent-Waqf Board before the Sub

¶417

41/49

¶418

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

¶419

W.P.No.16977 of 2024 Court, Dharapuram, in O.S.No.69 of 1988, for declaration of title and

¶420

recovery of possession of the property in S.No.401 and the Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 08.11.1990 dismissed the suit holding that the said property exclusively belong to A.S.Bajlul Huq; that though as against the judgment, Appeal was preferred by the respondent-Waqf Board, in A.S.No.476 of 1994, the same was also dismissed vide judgement and decree dated 03.07.2002 and there was no further Appeal as against the said

¶421

judgement. Though it is the contention of the learned counsel for the second respondent-Wakf Board that collusion between the Wakf Board with the petitioner has culminated in such dismissal, admittedly, no further Appeal was preferred by the Wakf Board. Further, the fourth respondent also not challenged the dismissal of the Appeal in C.M.A.No.4 of 1987,

¶422

whereby, the order passed by the Settlement Tahsildar dated 15.11.1973 was

¶423

confirmed.

¶424

42/49

¶425

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

¶426

W.P.No.16977 of 2024

¶427

27. Therefore, it is clear that the Wakf Board is not entitled to the

¶428

benefit of statutory bar provided under Section 22-A of the Registration

¶429

Act,1908 and the Registering Authority is not prevented from proceeding further to register the document presented by the petitioner dated 26.07.2022. Therefore, the contentions of the learned counsel for the second respondent-Wakf Board have to be brushed aside as the same does merit consideration. Similarly, the decision relied on by the learned counsel

¶430

by him also cannot be applied to the facts of the case on hand.

¶431

28. Thus, this Court, at the risk of repetition states that though the

¶432

second respondent-Wakf Board claims right over the properties, since, no particulars such as survey number and extent of the property were mentioned

¶433

and mere mention of the name of the Village alone is not sufficient to trace title over the property, as, list of Wakfs means list of properties mentioning the exact details such as extent and survey number. If the list of wakfs does

¶434

43/49

¶435

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

¶436

W.P.No.16977 of 2024 not contain such vital particulars, (i.e survey number and extent) the same

¶437

would not be construed by any Court of law as list of wakfs and if any third

¶438

party right would be created over such property and the right course available to the Wakf Board is to approach the Civil Court to establish their rights.

¶439

29. So far as the present case is concerned, the issue with regard to

¶440

the Wakf Board's entitlement over the subject property has already attained

¶441

finality by virtue of the order passed by the Trial Court in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession and the first Appeal preferred

¶442

against the said Trial Court's judgment was also dismissed, and there was no further Appeal as against the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court and that once, it is held by the Civil Court that the Wakf-Board is not entitled to any right over the subject property, the Wakf Board can have no claim

¶443

over the subject property, and if any such suit is to be instituted by the Wakf

¶444

44/49

¶445

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

¶446

W.P.No.16977 of 2024

¶447

Board at this distance point of time, the same would not only be barred by

¶448

limitation but also by res judicata, asthe petitioner's vendor's vendor title

¶449

over the property has already been decided by the Civil Court.

¶450

30. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to pass/issue the following

¶451

order/direction:-

¶452

i) The impugned order passed by the first respondent dated 16.05.2024 is set aside.

¶453

ii) Consequently, the first respondent is directed to register the settlement deed dated 26.07.2022 within two days from the date of representation of the same by the petitioner and return back the Settlement Deed to the petitioner.

¶454

31. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed on the aforesaid terms.

¶455

45/49

¶456

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

¶457

¶458

W.P.No.16977 of 2024

¶459

No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions, viz.,

¶460

W.M.P.Nos.18700 of 2024 is ordered and W.M.PNos. 18701 & 18073 of

2024 are closed.

21.11.2025

Index : yes/no Neutral Citation : yes/no

¶465

¶466

The Sub Registrar,

¶467

O/o. The Sub Registrar, Dharapuram Tiruppur District.

¶468

The Tamil Nadu Waqf Board, Rep.by Chief Executive Officer, No.1, Jaffer Syrang Street,

¶469

46/49

¶470

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

¶471

W.P.No.16977 of 2024

¶472

Vallal Seethakathi Nagar, Chennai – 600 001.

¶473

The Waqf Properties Secure & Monitoring Committee Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, Rep. by its District Incharge Alhah M.S.Mohammed Ali Jinna 2/53, Old Agraharam Street, Alangiyam Dharapuram Taluk, Tiruppur District – 638 657.

¶474