Mere Use Of Words “Waqf” And “Mosque” Doesn't Establish Public Waqf Sans Declaration: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court recently observed that unless there was a dedication or declaration of property for public charitable purpose, mere usage of the words “Waqf” or “Mosque” in a settlement deed would not mean that a property has been declared as public waqf. Justice PB Balaji observed, “At the risk of repetition, mere use of the words ' Waqf ' and 'Mosque' will not...
The Madras High Court recently observed that unless there was a dedication or declaration of property for public charitable purpose, mere usage of the words “Waqf” or “Mosque” in a settlement deed would not mean that a property has been declared as public waqf.
Justice PB Balaji observed,
“At the risk of repetition, mere use of the words ' Waqf ' and 'Mosque' will not imply that there has been creation of a public waqf under the deed,”.
The court was hearing a plea filed by Sirajudeen Sayeed (now deceased and represented by his legal repesentatives), challenging a notification of the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board declaring his property as public waqf.
The petitioner argued that the subject property was private family trust and it was never dedicated for any public waqf or public object/charity. It was argued that the partition deed created a private family waqf, which was only for the benefit of the family members and the Waqf PBoard had notified the property as public waqf without any jurisdiction.
The court was informed that the petitioner had earlier filed a petition seeking to quash the notification and the court had dismissed it with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Waqf Board. The petitioner submitted that the Biard was directed to hold proper enquiry, by affording sufficient opportunity and pass appropriate orders.
The petitioner argued that despite this order, the Board had passed a one page order without discussing any relevant facts and circumstances and such order could not stand the scrutiny of law, was bad, perverse and liable to be set aside.
The Board, on the other hand, argued that the petitioners were given sufficient opportunity before passing the final order. It was also argued that there was sufficient evidence to show that there was creation of public waqf, which was evident from the language of the partition deed, wherein it was held that the “respective share shall be entitled to manage these properties as Muthavalis and shall perform the charities, worship, etc., as has been usually done and is customary in the Mosque”.
The court noted that the charity that has been spelt out in the deed is only with respect to the performance of the annual ceremony for the late grandfather of the family. The court noted that there was nothing to show that the family's property was dedicated for any public purpose or object.
The court also noted that the waqf referred to in the deed could at best, be termed as private waqf or private trust which was for the benefit of the family members. The court observed that the board had no jurisdiction to interfere with the management and administration of the properties belonging to the private waqf/private trust.
The court thus concluded that the board's order was not only unreasoned but also perverse and unsustainable. The court thus allowed the plea and set aside the order of the Board.
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Balan Haridas
Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Haja Mohideen Gisthi Mrs. A. Ajimath Begum Mr. Zaffarullah Khan
Case Title: M Sirajudeen Sayeed and Others v The Tamil Nadu Waqf Board and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 135
Case No: CRP 877 of 2023