1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.12.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P.(MD)No.12503 of 2011 & M.P(MD)Nos.1 & 2 of 2011 & W.P.(MD)No.1306 of 2011 & M.P(MD)No.2 of 2011 W.P.(MD)No.12503 of 2011 Syed Gulam Dasthagir Trust, through its Trustee, S.Syed Ahamed Kabir, S/o. Late Syed Gulam Dasthagir Sahab 27-A, Bharathidasan Salai, Madurai. ... Petitioner Versus 1.The Madurai City Municipal Corporation, Through its Commissioner, Anna Maligai, Madurai. 2.The Assistant Commissioner, West Region, The Madurai City Municipal Corporation, Madurai. 3.Khathiriya Tharika Trust, Through its President, 61, Kazima Street, Madurai-1. ... Respondents PRAYER : Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the second respondent in his communication under Ref.No.May.Ma.Va.4/3297/2007 dated -09-2011 and quash the same and further direct the first and second respondent herein to restore the Property Tax Registry under Assessment No.49108 in the name of “Syed Gulam Dasthagir Trust. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram for Mr.M.Vallinayagam For Respondents: Mr.S.Janakar Standing Counsel for R1 & R2 for Madurai Corporation W.P.(MD)No.13606 of 2011 Khathiriya Tharika Trust, through its President, Door No.61, Kazimar Street, Madurai-625 001. ... Petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Versus 1.The Madurai City Municipal Corporation, Through its Commissioner, Anna Maligai, Madurai. 2.The Assistant Commissioner, West Region, The Madurai City Municipal Corporation, Madurai. 3.S.Syed Ahamed Kabir ... Respondents PRAYER IN WP(MD)NO.13606 OF 2011: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned order dated 07.11.2007 in reference Number R1/3297/07 passed by the first respondent and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.J.Bharathan For Respondents : Mr.S.Janakar Standing Counsel for R1 & R2 COMMON ORDER The petitioners in both these revisions are Wakfs. Both of them have come up with these writ petitions, challenging the orders passed by the Commissioner of Madurai Corporation, changing the assessment in their respective favour by consecutive proceedings. 2. Heard Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram, learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.12503 of 2011, Mr.J.Bharathan, learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.13606 of 2011 and Mr.S.Janakar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 in both the writ petitions. 3.It is admitted that from 1976, the assessment stood in the name of the petitioner in the second writ petition. At the instance of the petitioner in the first writ petition, the assessment order has been changed by the Corporation Commissioner by an order dated 07.11.2007, in favour of the petitioner in the first writ petition. But, it was done without notice to the petitioner in the second writ petition. 4.Therefore, the petitioner in the second writ petition filed objections on which the Commissioner passed yet another order dated 15.09.2011 restoring the entry in favour of the petitioner in the second writ petition. 5.Therefore, as against the order dated 15.09.2011, W.P.(MD)No.12503 of 2011 is filed. As against the order dated 07.11.2007 in W.P(MD) No.13606 of 2011 is filed. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner in the second writ petition filed two applications before the Wakf Tribunal; one for restraining the alienations and another for the eviction of the petitioner in the first writ petition. The eviction petition was dismissed. Therefore, the petitioner in the second writ petition has filed Wakf O.P.No.2 of 2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 praying for larger reliefs including the relief of declaration that the petitioner in the second writ petition is the original Trustee. 7.Therefore, the question as to who among the two petitioners is the real Trust and the question as to who between two petitioners is the actual owner, have to be decided only by the Wakf Tribunal and not by the Corporation Commissioner. The first order dated 07.11.2007 is passed without notice. The second order though passed after notice, is without application of mind. Therefore, both the orders should actually go. 8.The learned Counsel for the petitioner in the first writ petition apprehends that this may be taken advantage by the other petitioner in the Wakf O.P. But, it cannot be. The assessment by the Corporation cannot alter the original position. 9.Therefore, both the writ petitions are ordered and the impugned orders are set aside and it is clarified that the questions narrated above shall be decided only by the Wakf Tribunal. The Wakf Tribunal will not be influenced by the fact that the assessment stands in favour of either of the petitioners. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (RTI) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Commissioner, The Madurai City Municipal Corporation, Anna Maligai, Madurai. 2. The Assistant Commissioner, West Region, The Madurai City Municipal Corporation, Madurai. W.P.(MD)Nos.12503 & 13606 of 2011 19.12.2011 gsr RJ/3.1.12 3p/3c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/