High Court · 2025

W.P.No.2072 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 29.01.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHARW.P.No.2072 of 2025 andW.M.P.No.22072 of 2025l.Jafar Sathik... PetitionerVs.The Tamilnadu Wakf Board,Rep By Its Chief Executive Officer, No.1, Jaffer Syrang Street, Vallal Seethakathi Nagar, Chennai-1 .... RespondentsPRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the respondent vide proceedings dated 30.10.2024 in Se.Mu.Order 936/23/B5/Trichy in so far as restricting the tenure for a period of three years and quash the sameFor Petitioner: Mr.N.A.Nassir Hussain for I.Kowser NissarFor Respondents: Mr. Abdul Mubeen Standing Counsel (Wakf Board)1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2072 of 2025O R D E R The writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the respondent in so far as the impugned order restricts the tenure of the petitioner for a period of three years.2. The Walajah Nawab Magbara Mosque Wakf is a registered wakf under supervisory control of the respondent Board. It is not in dispute that the rule of succession to the office of Muthawalli of the wakf is hereditary. The same is recorded so in the proforma prepared by the respondent in Sl.No.10. The petitioner's forefather namely Khader Nawaz Khan Sahib was the proforma Muthawalli and after his death, the petitioner's grandfather S.Dowlath Khan succeeded to the office of Muthawalli. After death of petitioner's grandfather, being a grandson through his daughter, the petitioner succeeded to the office of Muthawalli in the year 2015. The respondent vide impugned proceedings recognised the petitioner as a hereditary Muthawalli of the wakf. However, restricted the tenure of the office for three years from 15.10.2024 to 14.10.2027.2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2072 of 20253. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the respondent has come to the conclusion that petitioner is a descendant of the previous muthawalli and by virtue of his hereditary right, he is entitled to succeed to the office of muthawalliship of the wakf, he is not justified in restricting the term of the office for three years. In other words, it is the case of the petitioner that he is entitled to hold office for life time provided he has not incurred any disqualification as provided in Wakf Act. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Apsar Peeran Shuttari Saheballa Vs The Tamilnadu Wakf Board, Rep. By its Chief Executive Officer in W.P.No.19032 of 2023. 4. The learned Standing Counsel (Wakf Board) appearing for the respondent, by taking this Court to the counter affidavit, submits that the concept of hereditary muthawalli is not recognized in Muslim law. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to claim that his term of office shall not be restricted for three years.3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2072 of 20255. The submission made by the learned Standing Counsel (Wakf Board) for the respondent is untenable in the light of proforma report prepared by the respondent which is included in the typed set of papers.6. A perusal of the same would clearly indicate that the rule of succession to the post of Muthawalli is hereditary and it is a custom prevailing in the wakf. Therefore, by virtue of hereditary right, the petitioner succeeded to the office of Muthawalli. In such circumstances, he is entitled to hold the office for life unless he incurs any disqualification under Wakf Act.7. In this regard, it would be appropriate to refer to the observations of this Court in the decision cited supra wherein this Court held as follows.:-“3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that once the respondent has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to be appointed as a hereditary Mutawalli, as per proforma, the respondent/Board is not justified in restricting the term of the hereditary Mutawalli for three years. In this regard, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in Subhan Vs. Executive Officer Waqf Board in W.P.No.18162 of 2000.4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2072 of 20254. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Board submits that the term of the petitioner was restricted to three years only to enable the respondent/Board to review the performance of the petitioner. The learned counsel further submitted that in case of any mismanagement by the petitioner, the respondent will be in a position to have a re-look after three years. Therefore, respondent is justified in restricting the term.5. The contention made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent is not acceptable to this Court. Once the respondent is convinced that the petitioner is the hereditary Mutawalli entitled to be appointed he should have been appointed for his life. The condition in the impugned order restricting the term of the hereditary Mutawalli to a period of three years has no sanction in law.6. As far as the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent is concerned, in case the respondent/Board receives any complaint against the style of management by the petitioner, it is always open to the respondent/Board to take action against him in accordance with law. In fact, under Section 64 of Waqf Act, the respondent/Board is entitled Writ Petition No.19032 of 2023 to remove the Mutawalli under various circumstances enumerated therein. In these circumstances, the restriction imposed in the impugned order restricting the term of office to three years need to be set aside”.8. The issue involved in this mater is squarely covered by the decision of this Court. The impugned order passed by the respondent is set aside to 5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2072 of 2025the extent it restricts the term of office to three years from 15.10.2024 to 14.10.2027. The petitioner is entitled to hold the office till his life time unless he incurs any disqualification under law. It is made clear that in case the petitioner incurs any disqualification, it is open to the respondent to take action against the petitioner as per the relevant provisions of Wakf Act.8. With this clarification, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.29.01.2025Index : Yes/NoSpeaking order:Yes/NoNeutral Citation:Yes/NonrToThe Tamilnadu Wakf Board,Rep By Its Chief Executive Officer, No.1, Jaffer Syrang Street, Vallal Seethakathi Nagar, Chennai-1 6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2072 of 2025S.SOUNTHAR, J.nrW.P.No.2072 of 2025 andW.M.P.No.22072 of 202529.01.20257/7