MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Supreme Court Rules Suit Land Not Established as Wakf Property; Dismisses Appeals

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India ruled that the suit land in question, which was the subject of a dispute between the Salem Muslim Burial Ground Protection Committee and the State of Tamil Nadu, was not established as a Wakf property. The court dismissed the appeals challenging the High Court's decision and affirmed that the land did not meet the requirements for being considered a Wakf property under Muslim law.

The controversy revolved around Zamin Survey Nos. 5105 and 5108 in Salem Zameen Estate, known as the "suit land." The claimants, who alleged to have acquired rights over the land through their predecessors-in-interest, asserted their claims based on various grounds. However, the appellant Committee argued that the suit land was a burial ground and could not be settled with any private individual.

The court examined the evidence presented and observed that there was no explicit dedication of the suit land for any pious, religious, or charitable purpose, which is necessary for the creation of a Wakf property under Muslim law. It further noted that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the suit land was used as a burial ground prior to 1900 or 1867, the alleged period of burial activity. The court determined that the suit land could not be considered a Wakf property by express dedication or inferred dedication from usage.

Additionally, the court addressed the issue of the notification dated April 29, 1959, declaring the suit land as a Wakf property. It emphasized that such a declaration must follow the prescribed procedure under the Wakf Act, 1954, which includes conducting surveys, settling disputes, and submitting reports to the State Government and the Wakf Board. As there was no evidence to show that the required procedure was followed before issuing the notification, the court held that the notification was not conclusive proof of the suit land being a Wakf property.

The appellant Committee raised an argument regarding the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a direction to consider the claims under Section 19A of the Tamil Nadu Estate (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948. However, the court found the argument lacking merit due to the appellant Committee's participation in the subsequent proceedings without objection or protest. It emphasized the principle of acquiescence and estoppel, stating that once a party accepts and participates in proceedings, it is estopped from disputing the jurisdiction or validity of the direction at a later stage.

Supreme Court dismissed the appeals for lack of merit and upheld the High Court's decision. The suit land was not recognized as a Wakf property, and no costs were awarded in the case.

D.D- 18.May.2023

SALEM MUSLIM BURIAL GROUND PROTECTION COMMITTEE    vs STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.   

Latest Legal News