Madras High Court Sets Aside Waqf Tribunal Order for Lack of Reasoned Decision and Remands for Fresh Enquiry Under Section 40. Non-speaking resolution by Waqf Board without proper enquiry into whether properties were private or public waqf necessitated remand for fresh determination.

Civil revision petition challenging Waqf Tribunal's dismissal of suit declaring notification registering properties as public waqf null and void.

Petitioners sought to set aside judgment in O.S.No.23 of 2022 dated 11.10.2022 and declare notification dated 03.11.2009 as null and void, with permanent injunction.

The Waqf Board had registered properties as public waqf without proper enquiry and passed a non-speaking order, contrary to earlier High Court directions.

Earlier, in W.P.No.26252 of 2008, High Court set aside registration and directed fresh enquiry; Waqf Board passed resolution on 03.11.2009; plaintiff challenged before Tribunal in O.S.No.23 of 2022, which was dismissed; hence present revision.

Whether the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board's notification dated 03.11.2009 registering properties as public waqf was valid, and whether the Waqf Tribunal erred in dismissing the suit challenging the same without considering the non-speaking nature of the order and lack of proper enquiry.

Petitioners argued that the properties were a private family trust, never dedicated as a public waqf; the Board's resolution was non-speaking and passed without proper enquiry in violation of Section 40; the Tribunal misread the partition deed by omitting the word 'ek;Kila', leading to an incorrect finding. Respondents argued that the partition deeds clearly created a public waqf with appointment of Mutawalli; the Board had given sufficient opportunity; and the suit was barred by limitation under Section 6 of the Waqf Act, 1995, having been filed in 2015 against a 2009 notification. The third respondent contended that the Board's notification was defective for want of notice to interested parties and that the enquiry required under Section 40 is quasi-judicial, rendering the non-speaking order void.

Under Section 40 of the Waqf Act, 1995, the Waqf Board is required to conduct a quasi-judicial enquiry and pass a reasoned speaking order when deciding whether a property is waqf property. A non-speaking order without any discussion of evidence or reasons is unsustainable. When an earlier High Court direction mandated a proper enquiry and passing appropriate orders, the Board's failure to comply vitiates the decision.

there is absolutely no discussion made and virtually, the Resolution dated 03.11.2009 as a non-speaking order. Section 40 of the Act, which requires a speaking order the impugned notification dated 03.11.2009 was defective, for want of issuance of notice and opportunity to other interested parties. He would also refer to Section 40 of the Act, which contemplates an enquiry, which is in the nature of a quasi judicial proceeding the resolution dated 03.11.2009 is a short one page order ... there is absolutely no discussion as to how the Board came to the conclusion the matter is remitted back to the 1st respondent for fresh disposal

26.05.2008: Waqf Board initially registered properties as waqf. 22.01.2009: High Court set aside registration and directed fresh enquiry in W.P.No.26252 of 2008. 03.11.2009: Board issued fresh notification registering as public waqf. 2010: Petitioner filed W.P.No.262 of 2010 challenging notification, dismissed with liberty to approach appropriate authority. 2015: Petitioner filed suit O.S.No.23 of 2022 before Waqf Tribunal. 11.10.2022: Tribunal dismissed suit. 2023: Present CRP filed under Article 227. 27.02.2026: Judgment allowing CRP and remanding matter.

• Waqf Act, 1995: Section 3(r), Section 3(i), Section 36, Section 40, Section 6
• Constitution of India: Article 227