Salem Muslim Burial Ground Protection Committee vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.
Background
The dispute concerned a piece of land in Salem, Tamil Nadu (referred to as the "suit land"), which was historically part of a larger area once used as a burial ground before the municipality ordered its closure for health reasons around 1867, allotting an alternative burial site instead. Various private claimants asserted rights over the suit land through purchase, mortgage, or long possession from the former zamindar's estate, while the Salem Muslim Burial Ground Protection Committee argued the land was Muslim wakf property (a permanent religious/charitable dedication) that could never be alienated to private persons, regardless of a 1959 government notification listing it as wakf. Decades of proceedings before revenue authorities and the Madras High Court went back and forth, at one point the High Court's Division Bench, while dismissing a writ appeal, had directed the government to consider the claimants' possession rights under Section 19A of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition) Act, a direction the Committee never challenged and in fact participated in. Eventually the High Court's final impugned order held that the suit land (distinct from a neighbouring plot already handed to the Wakf Board) was never proved to be a wakf property, prompting the Committee's appeal to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that a wakf can only be created by an express dedication of property by a Muslim for a religious/charitable purpose, or be inferred from long-standing use as such, and here there was no evidence of any express dedication of the specific suit land, nor concrete proof that it was ever actually used as a burial ground even before 1900. The land was in fact officially recorded as a "rudrabhoomi" (a Hindu cremation ground), distinct from the neighbouring, separately demarcated plot that genuinely was a Muslim burial ground and had already been transferred to the Wakf Board. The Court further held that the 1959 government notification declaring the land as wakf was not valid proof of wakf status because it skipped the mandatory two-stage survey and inquiry process required under Section 4 of the Wakf Act, 1954 before any such notification under Section 5 could issue, and notably, the Committee itself had never relied on this notification for 40 years until 1999. On the separate procedural argument that the High Court's earlier direction (to consider claims under Section 19A) exceeded its jurisdiction, the Court invoked the principles of acquiescence and estoppel, holding that since the Committee had itself participated in the subsequent proceedings without ever challenging that direction, it could not belatedly challenge it now: a party cannot "approbate and reprobate." The appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.
Lesson Learnt
A claim that land is a permanent religious endowment (wakf) requires concrete proof of either an express dedication or genuine long-term religious use: mere historical association or an improperly issued government notification (skipping mandatory survey procedures) is not enough; and a party that participates in court-directed proceedings without objection cannot later challenge the court's jurisdiction to have issued that direction in the first place.