THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI C.R.P.No.3839 of 2022 and CMP.No.20183 of 2022 1. The District Collector, District Collectorate Office, Villupuram District. For Petitioners : Mr.Haja Nazirudeen Additional Advocate General-I Assisted by Mr.B.Vijay Additional Government Pleader and Mr.P.Haribabu, Government Advocate For Respondents : Mr.Nisser Ahmed for Mr.Gunasekaran Mr.Avinash Wadhwani for R1 Mrs. Srimathi for R2 ORDER Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition stands allowed and the impugned order in IA.No.30 of 2019 in OA.No.278 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Waqf Tribunal, Chennai is hereby set aside. Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed. 17.03.2023 Vv To 1. The Tamil Nadu Waqf Tribunal, Chennai. 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Tamilnadu Waqf Board, No.1, Jaffer Syrang Street, Vallal Seethakathi Nagar, Chennai-1. 3. The Inspector of Waqfs, Villupuram and Cuddalore District, No.512, Gandhi Street, Panruti.  T.V.THAMILSELVI, J. Vv C.R.P.No.3839 of 2022 and CMP.No.20183 of 2022 17.03.2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
C.R.P.No.3839 of 2022 and
CMP.No.20183 of 2022
1. The District Collector, District Collectorate Office, Villupuram District.
2. The District Revenue Officer, District Collectorate Office Campus, Villupuram.
3. The Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate-Cum-Sub Collector, Tindivanam.
4. The Tahsildar,
Tahsildar Office, Gingee, Villupuram Distict.
5. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gingee Taluk, Gingee.
6. The Inspector of Police,
Ananthapuram Police Station,
Gingee Taluk,
Villupuram District. … Petitioners
/Versus/
1. M.Javid Ali
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Tamilnadu Waqf Board,
No.1, Jaffer Syrang Street, Vallal Seethakathi Nagar, Chennai-1.
3. The Inspector of Waqfs, Villupuram and Cuddalore District, No.512, Gandhi Street, Panruti.
4. Saravanan
5. Madhanbalan
6. Durai
7. Kannadasan
8. Thandapani
9. Murugavel
10. Pazhanivel
11. Deivasigamani
12. Pazhani
13. Subramani
14. Sankar
15. Rayar … Respondents PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, prayed to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 08.08.2019 in IA.No.30 of 2019 in OA.No.278 of 2019 on the file of Tamil Nadu Waqf Tribunal, Chennai by allowing this Civil Revision Petition.
For Petitioners : Mr.Haja Nazirudeen
Additional Advocate General-I
Assisted by
Mr.B.Vijay
Additional Government Pleader and
Mr.P.Haribabu,
Government Advocate
For Respondents : Mr.Nisser Ahmed for
Mr.Gunasekaran
Mr.Avinash Wadhwani for R1
Mrs. Srimathi for R2
ORDER
This revision petition has been filed to set aside the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Waqf Tribunal, Chennai in IA.No.30 of 2019 in OA.No.278 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019.
2. The first respondent herein is the Applicant in OA.No.278 of 2019 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Waqf Tribunal, Chennai. He is the hereditary
Muthavalli of Hasarath Syed Musthafa Sha Awlia Dharga situated at Gingee
Taluk, Villupuram.
3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners argues that the
Tribunal has no right with regard to the land which belongs to the Government. Without seeking declaration, the respondents straight away filed a suit for bare injunction. Besides, they have not issued notice under Section 80 of CPC. They approached revenue officials to seek patta in the year 2019.
4. Report of the revenue officials is at page No.174 and paragraph 5 is extracted here under:
“ tUtha; Jiw murhiz 1800 ehs;
20/11/1974 efy; rkh;gpf;fgg;l;Ls;sJ/ ,jpy; kj epWtd’;fs; rhh;ghd brhj;Jf;fspd; gl;lh khw;wk; bra;tJ bjhlh;ghf mwpt[iu tH’;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ kDjhuhpd; kD. Tprhuizapd; nghJ bgwg;gl;l thfF;K:y’;fs; rkh;gpf;fgg;l;L Mtz’;fs;. ,t;tYtyf Kd;nfhg;g[fs;. fpuhk. tll; fzf;Ffspd; efy;fs; Mfpaiy nkw;Twg;gl;l ghprPyizapd; tptu’;fs; Mfpait brd;id cah;ePjpkd;w tHf;F vz; 9691/2017d; nghpy; khz;gik ePjpkd;wk; tH’;fpa Mizg;go ghpryPiz bra;ag;gl;ld/ ,e;neh;tpy; tpGg;g[uk; khtl;lk;. br”;rp tl;lk;.
Rpl;lhk;g{z;o fpuhk g[y vz;59-1 2/69/0 bcwf;nlh;
Mfpait tf;g[ brhj;Jf;fs; vd;gjw;fhf ve;j tpj MtzKk; ,y;iy vd;gjhYk;. nkw;go epyk; tf;`g[ thhpaj;jpd; mDgtj;jpYk; ,y;iy jw;nghJ ,y;iy vd;gjhYk;. ,r;brhj;Jf;fs; tf;`g[ thhpaj;jpw;F brhe;jkhdJ vd chpik nfhhp ,Jehs; tiuapy; ve;jbthU chpikapay; epjPkd;wj;jpd; tpsk;g[if Miz ,y;iy vd;gjhYk; ,t;tpdj;jpy; tHf;Ffs; Vjk; epYitapy; ,y;iy vd;gjhYk; tpGg;g[uk; khtl;lk;. br”;rp tl;lk;. Rpl;lhk;g{z;o fpuhk g[y vz;/79-= 5/57/0 bcwf;nlh; Mfpait tf;`g[ thhpa brhj;Jf;fs; my;y vd Kot[ bra;ag;gl;L tl;l kw;Wk; fpuhk fz;f;Ffspy; tf;`g[ thhpaj;jpd; bgahpy; gl;lhthf jhf;fy; bra;jpl nfhUk; thjpapd; nfhhpf;if epuhfhpj;J Mizaplg;gLfpwJ/ nkYk; g[yd;fs; muRf;F brhe;jkhd g[wk;nghf;F g[yd;fns vdt[k; ,jd; thapyhf tpsk;g[if bra;ag;gLfpwJ/
5. The order was passed by declaring that the property in survey No.59/1 to an extent of 2.69.0 hectares neither belongs to Waqf Board nor it is in enjoyment of the Waqf . Therefore, they are not inclined to issue patta. That order was challenged. Subsequently, the first respondent filed writ petition challenging the said order. The order in the writ petition is at page No.202. While disposing the writ petition, this Court directed the petitioner to file appropriate appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer if he is having valid defence. The first respondent, so far not filed any appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer. Instead of filing appeal, he obtained interim injunction in IA.No.30 of 2019 in OA.No.278 of 2019 before the Waqf Tribunal at Chennai, which is challenged in this revision. They filed the application stating that they are in possession of the property and they prayed for injunction against the Government officials. Accordingly, interim order was passed.
6. The revision petitioners raised objection stating that without invoking Section 80 CPC, without issuing notice to the Government, they filed application, which is not maintainable. They also raised objection that the Waqf Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try the issue since the subject land in issue is a Government poramboke. In support of his contention, he relied upon Section 40 of the Waqf Act, which reads as follows:
40. Decision if a property is Waqf property.—
(1) The Board may itself collect information regarding any property which it has reason to believe to be Waqf property and if any question arises whether a particular property is Waqf property or not or whether a Waqf is a Sunni Waqf or a Shia Waqf it may, after making such inquiry as it may deem fit, decide the question.
(2) The decision of the Board on a question under sub-section (1) shall, unless revoked or modified by the
Tribunal, be final.
(3) Where the Board has any reason to believe that any property of any trust or society registered in pursuance of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 (2 of 1882) or under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860) or under any other Act, is Waqf property, the Board may notwithstanding anything contained in such Act, hold an inquiry in regard to such property and if after such inquiry the Board is satisfied that such property is Waqf property, call upon the trust or society, as the case may be, either to register such property under this Act as Waqf property or show cause why such property should not be so registered: Provided that in all such cases, notice of the action proposed to be taken under this sub-section shall be given to the authority by whom the trust or society had been registered.
(4) The Board shall, after duly considering such cause as may be shown in pursuance of notice issued under subsection (3), pass such orders as it may think fit and the order so made by the Board, shall be final, unless it is revoked or modified by a Tribunal.
Without deciding the nature of the property, the Waqf Tribunal straight away granted interim injunction in respect of the property which belongs to the Government. The order passed by the Tribunal is contrary to the provisions of Section 40 of the Waqf Act.
7. The learned counsel further argues that the land comprised in S.No.59/1 has not been included in the Government Gazette published in exercise of power conferred by Sub-Section (ii) of Section 5 of Waqf Act, 1955. The then Chief Executive Officer of Tamilnadu Waqf Board has illegally inserted SF.No.59/1 in Sittampoondi Village in the Waqf proforma by proceedings dated 21.02.2000 without any basis. The suit land had been included in the Waqf proforma as if Waqf land without possessing any valid title or right which is per se illegal and do not confer any title on the Waqf.
8. The learned counsel further relied upon Sections 4 & 5 of the Waqf
Act, which reads as follows:
4(1) The State Government may, by notification in the
Official Gazette, appoint for the State a Survey
Commissioner of Waqfs and as many Additional or
Assistant Survey Commissioners of Waqfs as may be
necessary for the purpose of making a survey of Waqfs existing in the State at the date of the commencement of this Act.
5. Publication of list of Waqfs.—
(1) On receipt of a report under sub-section (3) of section 4, the State Government shall forward a copy of the same to the Board.
(2) The Board shall examine the report forwarded to it under sub-section (1) and publish in the Official Gazette a list of Sunni Waqfs or Shia Waqfs in the State, whether in existence at the commencement of this Act or coming into existence thereafter, to which the report relates, and containing such other particulars as may be prescribed.
Based on the above provisions, the learned counsel submits that so far, Waqf Board has not published that this property is a Waqf property. Till date, the property is a Government land.
9. Further, the learned counsel argues that they attempted to encroach the property and law and order problem arose. Under the control of the Commissioner, enquiry was also conducted. Since law and problem has arisen, proceedings under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. was initiated. Thereafter, the first respondent also filed writ petition before this Court in WP.No.1176 of 2019 seeking mandamus against the revenue officials and the same was also dismissed as withdrawn. Clandestinely, the first respondent filed OA before the Waqf Tribunal and obtained order, which shows the conduct of the first respondent and it is abuse of process of law and law agency, since because in the subject land in issue in survey No.59/1A, the Government has decided to construct a Women College for Arts and Science. To that effect, already the Educational Secretary of the State passed proceedings dated 21.06.2022 (page No.155) and the same clearly disclosed that the Government is inclined to construct Arts and Science College at Ginjee.
10. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners also submits that the land belongs to the Tamilnadu Waqf Board comes under the jurisdiction of Ginjee Sub Registrar. In that, survey No.59/1 was not found, reveals that survey No.59/1 is not enclosed. They relied the FMB (page 154) topography of the land, which shows that the green portion classified as 59/1A allotted to the construction of the college and where mosque is there, survey No.59/1C is allotted, for temple it is 59/1D and for lake 59/1B. Chitta document shows that 59/1 is classified as Government poramboke to an extent of 2.69.0 hectares. The Tribunal has acted without jurisdiction and also granted injunction in favour of the respondents. As such, it is clear abuse of process of law and also attempted to grab the property which belongs to the Government. Accordingly, he prayed to strike off the entire proceedings.
11. By way of reply, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that injunction was granted by the Waqf Tribunal , Chennai in the year 2019, but the revision petition was filed in the year of 2022. The suit properties were Waqf Board properties and the same was gazetted and to support his contention, he produced gazette notification. Under Section 37 of Waqf Act, they produced the registered proforma before the Waqf Tribunal showing that the suit property is also one of the properties belongs to Waqf Board. Hence, this property is Waqf Board property. Out of the entire property in S.No.59.01 of Sittampoondi Village, Gingee Taluk, Villupuram District, the vast extent of property is being used by Dargah Waqf and the same was mentioned by the Police Officials during the law and order problem. When some of the third parties encroached the said portion, trouble arose and the said encroachment was removed. After the said encroachment, the respondent preferred a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.1828 of 2017, in that writ petition there was an order that the Waqf Board authorities had right to deal with the properties concerned.
12. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner also relied on the extract of A-Register enclosed in Page.No.109 stating that S.No.59/01 classifed as Arasu Poramboke land wherein the portioned property is mentioned as Dargah. The respondent approached Tahsildhar and Revenue Officials seeking assignment of the said land in their favour. Hence, the necessity arose for the Muthavalli to approach Waqf Tribunal and filed a petition in OA.No.278 of 2019 before the Waqf Board Tribunal. The Tahsildhar also filed written statement, in that written statement it was mentioned that Section 80(1) of CPC Notice was also not given and also mentioned about the pendency of the writ petitions. Further, he also contended that Survey No.51/01 is a Government Poramboke.
13. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners would submit that when the Muthavalli attempted to divide the vacant land for each 2 cents and hand over to the Muslim Community, thereby, the Sittampoondi
Village People also attempted to encroach and the dispute arose. So, they filed a suit for permanent injunction in OA.No.278 of 2019 and also filed application for ad-interim injunction in IA.No.30 of 2019 in OA.No.278 of 2019 before the Waqf Tribunal. The respondent herein placed all the primafacie materials before the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that already the suit properties belong to waqf board, notified as per the proforma and the same is in possession. Considering the same, interim injunction was granted. Further, he also contended that before the trial court he filed IA.No.29 of 2020 to dispense with notice under Section 80(2) CPC he complied with all the procedures against the Government Officials and therefore, the objection raised by the revision petitioners to that effect as such is not maintainable. The first respondent filed a writ petition not to cause any interference with the peaceful possession and the same was withdrawn. He filed another writ petition for a direction to give patta and based on that, direction was given and they have preferred application before the revenue officials to grant patta and the same was rejected by the Tahshildhar against which he preferred an appeal and the same is pending before Revenue Divisional Officer.
14. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Tribunalhas rightly perused all the documents and granted interim injunction which needs no interference.
15. Considering both submissions and a perusal of records which reveals that the first respondent herein has filed a suit in OA.No.278 of 2019 before the Waqf Tribunal claiming permanent injunction restraining the respondents 3 to 20 before the Government Officials as well as the individuals not to cause any interference in the enjoyment of the suit property situated in S.No.59/1 measuring to an extent of 2.69.0 hectares in Sitampoondi Village, Gingee Taluk, Villupuram District, to that effect he also filed an application seeking temporary injunction not to cause any interference in the land and in that application, notice was also served and the Government Officials filed Counter Statement on behalf of respondents 3 to 6.
16. On hearing both submissions, the Tribunal held that primafacie the plaintiff/first respondent proved that they are in enjoyment of the suit property by relying A1 Register marked as Ex.P.8 and held that the plaintiff is in possession of the property, temporary injunction was granted. The said order is challenged by the revision petitioners/ Government Officials by preferring this revision.
17. It is the contention of the revision petitioners that the suit property comprised in S.No.59/1 measuring to an extent of 2.69.0 hectares in Sittampoondi Village, Gingee Taluk, Villupuram District is Government Poramboke, out of which, a small portion was allotted for Dargah, there is a small temple in the adjacent land and small lake was also situated except that there is a vast extent of vacant land which belongs to Government Poramboke and all the said portions were already sub divided. Now, as per the Government Policy, in that place Government is inclined to construct Arts and Science College, but the plaintiff/ respondent herein attempted to get the Government Poramboke as if it belongs to Dargah by taking into advantage of the Dargah situated in small portion in S.No.59/1, for which, he also contend that the respondent /plaintiff already gave application before the revenue officials seeking patta for the said property and the same was denied by the Tahsildhar holding that the entire portion of the property is not in possession of the Dargah situated in 59/1 with an extent of 0.28.34 sq.m to that effect FMB was also enclosed in Page.No.159 which clearly reveals that the mosque is situated in S.No.59/1 c. Now, the Tahshildhar also verified the entire records finally they came to conclusion that the property is Government Poramboke and the same was registered in ARegister, so the patta was not granted in favour of the respondent/plaintiff.
However, the said order is challenged by the respondent before the Appellate Authority, as on date, the documents produced on the side of the revision petitioner clearly reveals that the patta was not granted in favour of the plaintiff herein. However, before obtaining the interim order, the plaintiff ought to have prove his possession of the property.
18. A bare perusal of the documents relied on by the plaintiff before the Waqf Tribunal that he produced Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11 are the documents, Gazette Notification, proforma and proceedings of 107 of CPC, but the contention of the plaintiff is that more than 100 years they are in possession and enjoyment of the property, but to prove their possession as on the date of filing of the application before Waqf Tribunal in August 2019, no documents were annexed, without which the tribunal has granted temporary injunction as such is totally unfair and liable to be set aside. However, in the proforma submitted before the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board also with regard to suit in S.No.59.1 the Muthavalli has not produced any parent document for the property concerned. Therefore, prima facie the plaintiff has not established his case before the tribunal but without appreciating all those facts the tribunal granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs which is totally unfair and liable to set aside.
19. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition stands allowed and the impugned order in IA.No.30 of 2019 in OA.No.278 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Waqf Tribunal, Chennai is hereby set aside. Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.
17.03.2023
Vv
To
1. The Tamil Nadu Waqf Tribunal, Chennai.
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Tamilnadu Waqf Board,
No.1, Jaffer Syrang Street, Vallal Seethakathi Nagar, Chennai-1.
3. The Inspector of Waqfs, Villupuram and Cuddalore District, No.512, Gandhi Street, Panruti. 
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
Vv
C.R.P.No.3839 of 2022 and CMP.No.20183 of 2022
17.03.2023