Ameerunnisa Begum Sahibas Endowment(Waqf) Vs the… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

Ameerunnisa Begum Sahibas Endowment(Waqf) Vs the… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued directing respondents 1 to 3 (Greater Chennai Corporation officials) to demolish the unauthorised construction stated to have been raised by respondent No.4 at No.22, Peters Road, Royapettah, Chennai-600 014, pursuant to the petitioner's representation dated 3.11.2025, thereby effecting eviction of respondent No.4. +1 more

Court's answer

As far as eviction of respondent No.4 is concerned, the petitioner has another alternative remedy — it may institute proceedings before the appropriate authority created under law seeking an order of eviction; the Court would therefore not entertain the petition on that count.

Ratio / Principle

As far as continuance of burial work is concerned, there is already a direction by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Crl.O.P.No.11865 of 2021, dated 31.01.2022; accordingly the Court declined to entertain the petition on that count as well.

Key takeaways

On both counts (eviction and continuance of burial work), the Court was not inclined to entertain the petition and left it open to the petitioner to work out its remedy in the manner known to law.ratio¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court, Division Bench (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, CJ and G. Arul Murugan, J.), 08.01.2026 — A registered, gazette-notified waqf endowment (Triplicane, Chennai) sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 directing Greater Chennai Corporation officials (Commissioner; Executive Engineer (Works), Zone 9; Assistant Engineer/Junior Engineer, Zone 9, Division 119) to demolish unauthorised construction said to have been raised by the fourth respondent (Sahib Basha) at No.22, Peters Road, Royapettah, pursuant to a representation dated 3.11.2025. Dismissed. Holding: (i) as to eviction of respondent No.4, the petitioner has an alternative remedy — separate eviction proceedings had already been initiated by eviction notice, and the petitioner may institute proceedings before the appropriate authority created under law; (ii) as to continuance of burial work, the point stands covered by the learned Single Judge's direction dated 31.01.2022 in Crl.O.P.No.11865 of 2021, whereby the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mylapore, was directed to provide police protection to the endowment and its employee Nizamuddin to conduct burial work free of obstruction or intrusion by respondent No.4, with coercive action permissible per law. On both counts the Bench declined to entertain the petition and left the petitioner to work out its remedy in the manner known to law. No order as to costs.

W.P.No.50807 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 08.01.2026

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN

W.P.No.50807 of 2025

Ameerunnisa Begum Sahibas Endowment(Waqf) A Registered and Gazette-notified Waqf) Rep. by its President, H.M.Muneeb, No.165/76, Bharathi Salai, Triplicane, Chennai-600 005

Petitioner

Vs

1.The Commissioner Greater Chennai Corporation, Ripon Building, Chennai-600 003

2.The Executive Engineer(Works) Greater Chennai Corporation, Zone 9, Teynampet, Chennai-600 018

3.The Assistant Engineer/Junior Engineer Greater Chennai Corporation, Zone 9, Division 119, Chennai-600 018

Page 1 of 6

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

W.P.No.50807 of 2025

4.Sahib Basha

S/o.Late.Khader Basha, New No.31, Old No.22, Peters Road, Royapettah, Chennai-600 014

Respondents

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to demolish the unauthorised construction in No.22, Peters Road, Royapettah, Chennai-600 014 raised by 4^th respondent as per representation dated 3.11.2025.

For Petitioner: Ms.R.Sripriya (through Video Conferencing) For Respondents: Mr.D.B.R.Prabhu Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Through this writ petition, a mandamus is sought to evict

respondent No.4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, earlier when respondent No.4 was interfering with the burial work in

Page 2 of 6

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

W.P.No.50807 of 2025

the burial ground, a request was made to the police to provide police protection, so as to allow burial work in the burial ground without any obstruction or intrusion from respondent No.4.

When the police did not take any action, a petition (Crl.O.P.No.11865 of 2021) was filed seeking a direction to the police to provide police protection. In that petition, an order was passed directing the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mylapore, to give appropriate instructions and provide police protection to the petitioner and its present employee Nizamuddin to carry on his burial work in the burial ground without any obstruction and intrusion from respondent No.4, if needed, coercive action to be taken in accordance with law, if there is any obstruction.

It is further submitted that separate proceedings for eviction of respondent No.4 has already been initiated by giving eviction notice, but respondent No.4 is illegally continuing in possession.

As far as eviction is concerned, the petitioner has other alternative remedy to institute proceedings before the appropriate

_______________ Page 3 of 6_

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

W.P.No.50807 of 2025

authority created under law seeking order of eviction.

As far as continuance of burial work is concerned, there is already a direction by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Crl.O.P.No.11865 of 2021, dated 31.01.2022 [ The Ameerunnisa Begum Sahibas Endowments, rep. by its President, 165/76, Barathi Salari, Triplicane, Chennai-5 v. The Deputy Commissioner of Police Mylapore, O/o. the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mylapore, Chennai-4 and others ].

Therefore, on both counts, we are not inclined to entertain this petition and leave it open for the petitioner to work out its remedy in the manner known to law.

The writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J) 08.01.2026 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No bbr

_______________ Page 4 of 6_

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

W.P.No.50807 of 2025

To:

1.The Commissioner Greater Chennai Corporation, Ripon Building, Chennai-600 003

2.The Executive Engineer(Works) Greater Chennai Corporation, Zone 9, Teynampet, Chennai-600 018

3.The Assistant Engineer/Junior Engineer Greater Chennai Corporation, Zone 9, Division 119, Chennai-600 018

_______________ Page 5 of 6_

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

W.P.No.50807 of 2025

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.

bbr

W.P.No.50807 of 2025

08.01.2026

_______________ Page 6 of 6_

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