Allowed¶32

S. Mubaraj Ali. v. the State of Tamilnadu, Rep.by

Madras HC4 Mar 2025WP/40897/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tenant estoppel — denial of landlord's title; jurisdiction of Commissioner of Land Administration over title disputes; unchallenged 1959 survey notification bars revenue-authority action; Civil Court exclusive jurisdiction on title; cancellation of Director of Survey and Settlement order recording wakf character of land; quashing of order dated 24.10.2002; Article 226 certiorari; Thiruchengode, Namakkal District; Tamilnadu Wakf Board; Madras High Court, Justice N. Sathish Kumar, 04.03.2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition allowed; impugned order passed by the first respondent quashed; connected miscellaneous petition (WMP.No.60566 of 2002) closed; no costs. ¶32

S. Mubaraj Ali. Vs the State of Tamilnadu, Rep.by — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ Petition allowed; impugned order passed by the first respondent quashed; connected miscellaneous petition (WMP.No.60566 of 2002) closed; no costs.

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the first respondent (Special Commissioner & Commissioner of Land Administration) had jurisdiction to entertain the second and third respondents' letter/application and cancel the Director of Survey and Settlement's Order dated 21.04.1998, when the notification dated 30.04.1959 was not challenged and title can be decided only by the Civil Court.

¶31

Court's answer

Once a person is inducted as a tenant, he is estopped from denying the title of the landlord — principle stated by this Court in its earlier batch decision (CRP.Nos.1666 and 16667 of 2003 and connected WPs) and applied here.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

As long as the notification dated 30.04.1959 is not challenged, the first respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain the letter of the second and third respondents (tenants).

¶31

Key takeaways

The Civil Court alone has got jurisdiction to decide the title to the property.ratio¶31
The first respondent had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned Order dated 24.10.2002 and the same is liable to be quashed.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (N. Sathish Kumar, J.), W.P.No.40897 of 2002, decided 04.03.2025 — Certiorari under Article 226 — Wakf land, 66 cents in S.No.90/2, Thiruchengode Village, published as petitioner's property by notification dated 30.04.1959, which was not challenged within one year; revenue records changed as wakf property by Order of the Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement dated 21.04.1998; on the application of tenants (R2 & R3), the Special Commissioner & Commissioner of Land Administration cancelled that order on 24.10.2002. Held: (i) a tenant, once inducted, is estopped from denying the landlord's title (following this Court's earlier batch decision in CRP.Nos.1666 and 16667 of 2003 and connected W.Ps.); (ii) so long as the 1959 notification stands unchallenged, the revenue authority has no jurisdiction to entertain the tenants' letter, since the Civil Court alone can decide title; (iii) consequently the first respondent had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. Result: Writ Petition allowed; order dated 24.10.2002 quashed; connected miscellaneous petition closed; no costs.

¶1

WP.No.40897 of 2002

¶2

IN THE HIG H COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 04.03.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

W.P.No.40897 of 2002 & WMP.No.60566 of 2002

¶7

S.Mubarak Ali Muthavalli, Thiruchengodu Muslim Masjith, Thiruchengodu, Namakkal District.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by is Special Commissioner & Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶11

A.Murasoli

¶12

M.Suresh

¶13

The Secretary, Tamilnadu Wakf Board, Santhome, Chennai – 600 004.

¶14

.. Respondents

¶15

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records in Pa.Mu.K. 4./10515/2002, dated 24.10.2002 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as unconstitutional and illegal.

¶16

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

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.K.P.Gopalakrishnan For Respondents : Mr.P.Balathandayutham, Special Government Pleader – R1

¶18

1/5

¶19

Mr.P.Mani – R2 & R3

¶20

Mr.R.Abdul Mubeen – R4

¶21

WP.No.40897 of 2002

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Challenging the Order of the first respondent dated 24.10.2002,

¶24

wherein the Order of the Settlement Officer dated 21.04.1998 has been cancelled, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

¶25

The case of the petitioner is that the land to an extent of 66 cents in

¶26

Survey No.90/2 in Thiruchengode Village belongs to the petitioner and the same was also published in the notification dated 30.04.1959. The said notification has not been challenged within one year. The wakf constructed shops and leased out to the tenants and has been collecting rents. The second and third respondents are tenants under the petitioner and the petitioner is collecting rents from them. The revenue records have also been changed as wakf property by an Order of the Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement dated 21.04.1998. The grievance of the petitioner is that on the application filed by the tenants, the first respondent by his Order dated 24.10.2002 cancelled the Order of

¶27

the Director of Survey and Settlement. Hence, the present Writ Petition to quash the said Order of the first respondent. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

2/5

¶29

WP.No.40897 of 2002

¶30

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶31

This Court in a batch of Civil Revision Petitions in CRP.Nos.1666 and 16667 of 2003 and W.P.Nos.27663, 27664 of 2003 & 26064 of 2005 has clearly held that once a person is inducted as a tenant, he is estopped from denying the title of the landlord. As long as the notification is not challenged, the first respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain the letter of the second and third respondents as the Civil Court alone has got jurisdiction to decide the title. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the first respondent has no jurisdiction to to pass the impugned Order and the same is liable to be quashed.

¶32

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated passed by the first respondent is quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

¶33

04.03.2025

¶34

vrc

¶35

Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

3/5

¶37

WP.No.40897 of 2002

¶38

To,