Madras High Court Rejects Mosque's Claim Over 1,100 Acres in Tirunelveli
Court held that the mosque was entitled to only 2.34 acres as waqf property based on a 1712 historical grant, overturning the Waqf Tribunal’s earlier decree
The Madras High Court dismisses a mosque's claim over 1,100 acres of land
The Madras High Court has rejected a mosque’s claim over more than 1,100 acres of land in Tirunelveli district, stating that it is entitled to just 2.34 acres, as per a historical grant issued in 1712 by the then ruler of Madurai Samasthanam.
The bench of Justice M. Dhandapani partly allowed a civil revision petition filed by the State government in 2018, challenging an earlier decree of the Waqf Tribunal (Tirunelveli Principal Sub-Court) in favor of the Muthawalli of Kanmiya Pallivasal at Kandiyaperi, dated August 18, 2016.
During the proceedings, senior counsel V. Raghavachari represented the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board, while amicus curiae Chevanan Mohan also assisted the court on the government’s revision petition.
Additional Advocate General Veera Kathiravan pointed out that all land survey numbers cited by the mosque in its 2011 suit had already been notified in 1966 under the Tamil Nadu Inam (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act. Many of these parcels had been allocated to landless farmers, with 362 individuals using them for agricultural purposes.
Court clarified that while the historical 1712 grant to the mosque was valid and recognized, including confirmation by the Tinnevelly Subordinate Court in 1955, the extent of land mentioned in the grant was limited to 75 kottahs. Each kottah, according to contemporary measurements, equates to just 0.03124 acres, resulting in the mosque’s entitlement being confined to 2.34 acres.
In a related development, the Allahabad High Court recently addressed a case involving Waqf Madarsa Qasimul Uloom, which had constructed structures on land belonging to National Highway No. 73. Court dismissed the Madarsa's plea to restrain authorities from demolishing these structures, emphasizing that the petitioner failed to provide evidence of the land's registration as Waqf property. Court highlighted that the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) owned the land, and the Madarsa's claim of "waqf by user" was not substantiated.
In another matter, the Rajasthan High Court, in a case involving the Madina Zama Masjid, affirmed that a mosque qualifies as Waqf property under the Waqf Act, 1995. Court emphasized that disputes concerning Waqf properties must be adjudicated exclusively by the Waqf Tribunal, as mandated by Section 85 of the Act.
The dispute involved the Madina Zama Masjid, alleged to have been built with financial support from the local Muslim community, with the mosque being maintained and expanded over time by the villagers. While the petitioners (original defendants) asserted their rightful title over the mosque property, the original plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction from the civil court to prevent the defendants from interfering with the peaceful use of the mosque by the Muslim community for religious practices, including Namaz.
The trial court had ruled that the suit property was not entered in the Waqf register as Auqaf property, hence, it was not a Waqf Property and unless the property was a Waqf Property, the jurisdiction of civil court was not barred. However, the petitioners argued that the civil court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit.