Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Accused Not Entitled To Copies Of 'Unrelied' Upon Documents At The Stage Of Framing Of Charges Under Section 91 CrPC: Supreme Court Elected Representatives Have No Privilege To Resort To Violence; Criminal Antecedents Are Material For Bail Adjudication: Supreme Court Mere Absence Of Transport Documents Does Not Create A Presumption Of Violation Of Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004: Supreme Court Section 396 IPC | Conviction For 'Dacoity With Murder' Requires Proof That Murder Was Committed In The Course Of Dacoity: Allahabad High Court 'Developers Cannot Delay Conveyance For Eternity And Milk Additional FSI Benefits': Bombay High Court Upholds Societies' Deemed Conveyance Pre-Approval Statutory Dues Stand Extinguished Upon Approval Of Resolution Plan; GST Authorities Cannot Initiate Fresh Proceedings: Calcutta High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell With Delivery Of Possession Is Admissible In A Suit For Specific Performance: Delhi High Court Stigmatic Order Discharging Probationer Without Inquiry Is Void For Violation Of Natural Justice: Gujarat High Court Execution Proceedings | Court Cannot Impose Arbitrary Financial Conditions Without Reason In Stay Applications: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 528 BNSS | High Court Cannot Exercise Inherent Powers To Circumvent Statutory Bar Against Second Revision: Delhi High Court Advocate Empanelment | Restriction On Multiple Applications Is A Procedural Choice Within Employer’s Domain: Delhi High Court Acquittal Appeal | Double Presumption Of Innocence In Favour Of Accused Cannot Be Disturbed Merely Because Another View Is Possible: Gujarat High Court SC/ST Act | Offence Under Section 3(1)(g) Not Attracted If Dispossession Or Interference Is Not Due To Victim's Caste: Himachal Pradesh High Court Judicial Officer Must Maintain Distance From Practicing Advocates To Avoid Impropriety: Gujarat High Court Upholds Dismissal Section 183 BNSS | Investigating Officer Cannot Independently Record Further Statement Of Victim After Recording Before Magistrate: Karnataka High Court Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

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