This revision is against the order passed in O.A.No.2 of 2004 on the file of Wakf Tribunal/the First Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
2.The order in O.A.No.2 of 2004 reads that the application was dismissed subject to the second respondent's right to alienate the petition mentioned property with approval of Wakf Board for a reasonable price.
3.The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner is absent. The learned counsel appearing for the Wakf Board would represent that the application for permission filed by the second respondent for sale of the Wakf property was rejected by the Wakf Board.
4.Before the lunch recess, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner was present in the Court and made a request to the Court to hear him and then to pass orders after lunch. Accordingly CRP was heard in full upto 4.00 pm after lunch.
5.The grievance of the revision petitioner is that already there was a resolution passed by the Wakf Board dated 27.05.2003 for sale of the properties in question and after following the formalities the properties were sold in public auction and the revision petitioner is the highest bidder for Rs.6,50,000/- and as per the resolution dated 08.03.1995, the offer of the revision petitioner was accepted and that the revision petitioner also ultimately came forward to donate Rs.61,000/- to the Wakf Board. As per the resolution dated 27.05.2003 the bid amount of Rs.6,50,000/- along with Rs.61,000/- is to be paid to the Wakf Board within 10 days from the date of receipt of proceedings of the Board, failing which the sale order will stand cancelled automatically. Even on the date of passing of the resolution dated 27.05.2003, the revision petitioner was physically present, but he has not tendered the bid amount of Rs.6,50,000/- along with Rs.61,000/- being the donation to the Wakf Board within 10 days.
6.The Wakf Tribunal while dismissing his O.A.No.2 of 2004 has also observed that to enforce the contract the petitioner has not filed any application within the period of three years. Referring to the
Section 107 of the Wakf Act, 1995, the learned counsel would state that the Limitation Act will not be applicable. But a close reading of
Section 107 of the Wakf Act, 1995 will go to show that the Limitation Act 1963 will not be applicable to only a suit for possession of immovable property comprised in any wakf property. There is no total prohibition of applicability of Limitation Act, 1963 for Wakf property under Wakf Act, 1995.
7.The resolution dated 08.03.1995 was also passed only in the presence of the revision petitioner, wherein also it has categorically been stated that within 10 days of the receipt of the proceedings the revision petitioner shall deposit Rs.6,50,000/- along with Rs.61,000/- being the donation by him to the Wakf.
8.The grievance of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that the resolution dated 08.03.1995 was not communicated to him. But the fact remains that even on the date of passing of the resolution dated 08.03.1995 the successful bidder A.Mohideen was physically present and even after the passing of the resolution dated 27.05.2003 the same was communicated to him. He has not taken any steps to deposit the bid amount of Rs.6,50,000/- along with Rs.61,000/- offered by him as donation to the Wakf within the stipulated time of 10 days.
9.The revision petitioners are the LRs of A.Mohideen, who was physically present at the time of passing of the resolutation dated 8.3.1995 as well as 27.05.2003. Under such circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the above said resolutation dated 08.03.1995 was not communicated to them or to A.Mohideen is not a ground for them for refraining from depositing the bid amount of Rs.6,50,000/- along with Rs.61,000/- being the amount offered as donation for the Wakf Board. Even the Tribunal has clearly observed that the property is liable to be sold because it is in a delabitated condition and that it has further directed that the 2nd respondent is entitled to alienate the petition scheduled property after obtaining the approval of the Wakf Board for a reasonable price. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the Tribunal.
10.The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed before admission. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
30.03.2009 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No ssv / sgl To The Wakf Tribunal Judge, 1st Asst. City Civil Court, Chennai.
A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN,J.
ssv / sgl C.R.P.(NPD).No. 3253 of 2008 30.3.2009