CRP/2528/2026 of S.Chandira Vs The District Collector

CRP No. 2528 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24-04-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI CRP No. 2528 of 2026 AND CMP NO. 10684 OF 2026,CMP NO. 10680 OF 2026 S.Chandira w/o. R.Selvam (late), No.21 Manakulavinayagar Street, Thiruvannamalai Town and Dist. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The District Collector Collectorate, Vengikkal, Tiruvannamalai 606 604. 2. The Tamil Nadu Waqf Board Rep. by the Chief Executive Officer, No.1 Jaffer Syrang Street, Vallal Seethakathy Nagar, Chennai 600 003. 3. Nawab Chanda Miyan Masjid and Mir Momin Madad Tomb Wakf Rep. by its Muthavalli, No.77 Mathalakula Street, Tiruvannamalai Dist. ..Respondent(s) PRAYER Civil Revision Petition filed under Art.227 of Constitution of India, praying to set aside the docket order dated 06-04-2026 passed in CMP.No.9 of 2026 in AS.No.3 of 2026 on the file of the Wafq Tribunal, Chennai. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 2528 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 4 For Petitioner(s): Mr.A.R.Balaji for M/S. Eswar, Kumar and Rao For Respondent(s): Mr.V.Ramesh Government Advocate For R1 ORDER The appellant is the revision petitioner herein. Challenging the issuance of show cause notice passed in Na.Ka.M2/44168/2009, dated 19.11.2024 by the 1st respondent District Collector, by invoking Sec.52(1) of the Waqf Act, he had preferred first appeal and also filed a petition in C.M.P.No. 9 of 2026 praying to stay the operation of the said impugned notice. Notice served on the Government Officials. The learned counsel for 2 nd respondent Waqf appeared and not filed any objections. However, the trial court had adjourned the case to 29.04.2026 without considering the emergency on the side of appellant, since based on the notice, they have attempted to take possession. Aggrieved ove r that, the revision petitioner preferred this Civil Revision Petition. 2. The learned counsel for revision petitioner would submit that since the revision petitioner being a widow lady, who was in possession of property and without considering the nature of lease as well as apprehension, the tri al court erroneously adjourned the matter without passing any order. 3. Considering the fact that the revision petitioner being a widow lady and aged about 56 years was in possession of property and also considering the nature of lease, this Court is inclined to direct the trial judge to consider the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 2528 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 4 petition filed in C.M.P.No. 9 of 2026 and to dispose the same within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Till then, not to cause any interference in the enjoyment of suit property. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petitions are closed. 24-04-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No RPP To 1. The Waqf Tribunal, Chennai. 2. The District Collector Collectorate, Vengikkal, Tiruvannamalai 606 604. 3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 2528 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 4 T.V.THAMILSELVI J. RPP CRP No. 2528 of 2026 AND CMP NO. 10684 OF 2026,CMP NO. 10680 OF 2026 24-04-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis