In a significant judgment clarifying the jurisdiction of Tribunals under the Waqf Act, 1995, the Supreme Court has held that a Waqf Tribunal cannot entertain a suit for injunction simpliciter regarding a property that is not specified in the ‘list of auqaf’ published under Chapter II or registered under Chapter V of the Act.
The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran allowed the appeal filed by Habib Alladin and others, rejecting the plaint filed before the Tribunal under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The Court reaffirmed the principles laid down in Ramesh Gobindram v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf (2010), distinguishing later judgments that had taken a divergent view on the scope of Section 83 of the Act.
The core legal question before the Apex Court was the “reach and sweep of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal constituted under the Wakf Act, 1995,” specifically whether a Tribunal has jurisdiction to grant an injunction for a property claimed to be a ‘waqf by user’ but not notified in the official list of auqaf.
The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the High Court and the Tribunal, ruling that “the decision as to whether the property is a waqf property or not cannot be decided by the Tribunal since the property is not one specified in the ‘list of auqaf’, which is the mandatory requirement under Section 6(1) and Section 7(1) of the Waqf Act of 1995 to approach the Tribunal.”
Background of the Case
The dispute arose regarding an apartment complex developed on land owned by the first appellant. The respondent, Mohammed Ahmed, contended that an area on the ground floor was enclosed as a Mosque by the builder with the owner’s participation. Claiming that he and others had been offering prayers there since 2008, the respondent filed a suit before the Waqf Tribunal seeking a perpetual injunction against the appellants for obstructing access to the alleged Mosque in 2021.
The appellants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC seeking rejection of the plaint. They argued that the property was not a waqf under the Act of 1995 as there was no dedication or notification. They contended that since the property was not included in the ‘list of auqaf’ or registered with the Board, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
Both the Tribunal and the High Court rejected the application. The High Court observed that the averments in the plaint indicated a ‘waqf by user’ under Section 3(r)(i) of the Act, prompting the appellants to approach the Supreme Court.
Arguments
Senior Advocate C. Aryama Sundaram, appearing for the appellants, argued that Sections 6 and 7 of the Act confer jurisdiction on the Tribunal to determine if a property is waqf property only if it is specified in the ‘list of auqaf’ under Section 5. He contended that a declaration of status for a non-notified property cannot be agitated before the Tribunal and must be taken to a Civil Court. Reliance was placed on Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal (2017) and Ramesh Gobindram.
Senior Advocate Niranjan Reddy, representing the respondent, argued that the Tribunal has wide powers under Section 83 to determine “any dispute, question or other matter relating to a waqf.” He relied on the 2013 Amendment to the Act and the judgment in Rashid Wali Beg v. Farid Pindari (2022), which held that Section 83 covers the entire gamut of disputes, effectively removing the substratum of Ramesh Gobindram.
Court’s Analysis
Justice K. Vinod Chandran, writing the judgment, conducted an exhaustive review of precedents, including Ramesh Gobindram, W.B. Wakf Board v. Anis Fatma Begum, and Rashid Wali Beg.
Reaffirming Ramesh Gobindram: The Court observed that Ramesh Gobindram had correctly held that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to determine whether a property is a waqf property arises only if the property is specified in the list of auqaf. The bench noted that the ouster of Civil Court jurisdiction under Section 85 is not absolute but limited to matters required by the Act to be determined by the Tribunal.
On Divergent Views and Section 83: The Court expressed disagreement with the broad interpretation of Section 83 adopted in Anis Fatma Begum and Rashid Wali Beg. The bench stated:
“We cannot find Section 83 to be a provision conferring jurisdiction on the Tribunal with respect to matters in addition to which already jurisdiction has been conferred under the other provisions of the Act… Section 83 does not by itself confer any jurisdiction on the Tribunal… It merely enables the constitution of the Tribunal by the State.”
The Court clarified that the expansive view in Rashid Wali Beg, which suggested Section 83 covers “any dispute” relating to waqf property, was contrary to the statutory scheme. The judges noted that the specific words “under this Act” in Section 83 imply that the property must have a recognized status under the Act—either via the Section 5(2) list or the Section 37 register.
Effect of the 2013 Amendment: The Court analyzed the 2013 Amendment, noting that while it expanded the definition of ‘list of auqaf’ to include registered properties and conferred specific powers for eviction under Section 54, it did not alter the core jurisdictional limits regarding the declaration of property status.
“The amendment Act of 2013 removes the sub-stratum of the decision in Ramesh Gobindram only to the extent of the absence found, of the jurisdiction conferred on the Tribunal to remove encroachers and does not, in any other manner, interfere with the principle stated of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal…”
Decision
Applying these principles to the facts, the Supreme Court found that the subject property was neither in the published list of auqaf nor registered under the Act.
“The injunction simpliciter sought for before the Tribunal does not fall within its jurisdiction and the plaint has to be rejected,” the Court ruled.
The appeal was allowed, and the suit filed before the Tribunal was rejected. The Court left the question of whether the property is a ‘waqf by user’ open to be agitated in accordance with law before a competent forum.
Case Details
- Case Title: Habib Alladin & Ors. v. Mohammed Ahmed
- Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. of 2026 (@ SLP (C) No. 2937 of 2022)
- Coram: Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
