WP(MD)/26773/2026 of Mohammed Farook Vs The District Revenue Officer on 7 October 2026

ORDER

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the Mutawalli of the sixth respondent-Pallivasal. He would submit that the property in S.No.276/1 of Thuvarankurichi Village, Marungapuri Taluk, Trichy District, measuring an extent of 12.35 acres as per the revenue records, originally stood in the name of Nainar Pallivasal, which was also the name of the sixth respondent. Without reference to the revenue records, the property had been sub-divided and pattas had been issued in favour of the private respondents. He would submit that when the property belongs to a Wakf, the private respondents cannot derive any valid title over the property. The various documents executed, which are being relied upon by the private respondents for grant of patta, were objected to by the petitioner.

2. He would further submit that the petitioner had taken out an application before the second respondent with regard to the mutation of the revenue records in favour of the private respondents and the second respondent, who had rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that there are disputed title with respect to the lands in question, directed suit to be filed, against which he has preferred an appeal before the first respondent, who also without considering the original claim of the petitioner being the Mutawalli of the Wakf, had again held that there is no error in the order of the second respondent and dismissed the appeal

3. He would further submit that the earlier suit was filed in the year 1971 by the Special Officer representing the Wakf in respect of the properties belonging to the Wakf. However, for reasons best known, the same was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh suit on the same cause of action and no suit had been filed. Hence, in the best interest of the Wakf to protect its property, the petitioner had approached the authorities and the authorities without deciding the issue on merits, had called upon the petitioner to approach the civil Court for relief. Hence, he would seek indulgence of this Court to set aside the order impugned and direct the authorities to consider the application of the petitioner on merits and decide the issue.

4. Countering his arguments, the learned counsel for respondents 7 to 9 would submit that the properties in issue were all subject matter of various transactions. They would also further question the locus standi of the petitioner in instituting the writ petition based upon the earlier proceedings before the authorities. He would further submit that it is the Wakf which has to establish it's title to the property and in that regard, he would also submit that a claim can also be not made by a Wakf, as it would be barred by the provisions of Section 7(3) of the Wakf Act, 1995. Hence, he would submit that there is no necessity for interfering with the order impugned in this writ petition.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent would submit that in the proforma presented to it, the property had been held to be belonging to the Wakf and a notification has also been issued in that regard. When that be so, respondents 7 to 9 cannot claim that the property belong to them and any sale of a Wakf property is a void transaction. In that regard, he would pray this Court to pass necessary orders.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the tenth respondent would submit that he supports the arguments made by the learned counsel appearing for respondents 7 to 9.

7. The learned Special Government Pleader would submit that since there is a dispute of title between the parties, the parties were directed to approach the civil Court seeking remedial measures and in that regard, he would submit that there is no infirmity or irregularity in the order passed by the authority, which is impugned in this writ petition.

8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and perused the material placed on record.

9. It is the claim of the petitioner that the various properties belong to the Wakf are now being claimed by respondents 7 to 10 and the revenue records, which originally stood in the name of the Wakf, had been mutated in their name. Hence such revenue records would have to be rectified and the property should be shown to be the property belonging to the Wakf.

10. It is to be noted that earlier, a suit was filed by a Special Officer of the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board in respect of the properties belonging to the Wakf and the same had been permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. It is also admitted that no fresh suit had been filed in respect of the Wakf's property. There is also no dispute that respondents 7 to 10 claim the property belonging to the Wakf to their own independent property acquired under various sale deeds based upon other parent documents in relation to the property. In such circumstances, this Court do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the first respondent for remedial measures before a competent Court of law.

11. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court do not find any merit in the writ petition and the Writ Petition stands dismissed. However, interested persons are entitled to move the competent Court for remedial measures, if they so desire. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. 07-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No ABR To

1. The District Revenue Officer, Tiruchirappalli District, Tiruchirappalli.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Srirangam Revenue Division, Tiruchirappalli District.

3. The Tahsildar, Marungapuri Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District.

4. The Village Administrative Officer, Thuvarankurichi Village, Marungapuri Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District.

K.KUMARESH BABU, J. abr

5. The Waqf Secretary, Tamil Nadu Waqf Board Office, Trichy Zone, Palaikkarai, Trichy - 620 008. WP(MD) No. 26773 of 2026 10/07/26