The Gujarat High Court on Wednesday dismissed nearly 150 petitions filed by Muslim Waqf institutions, holding that they are required to pay court fees to pursue disputes before the State Waqf Tribunal and cannot claim a blanket exemption under the Waqf Act.
Justice J.C. Doshi rejected the challenges mounted by several Waqf trusts, including the Sunni Muslim Idgah Masjid Trust, Vadodara Saher Masjid Sabha Trust, and the Sarkhej Roza Committee of Ahmedabad, which had questioned tribunal orders directing them to deposit court fees before their cases could be heard.
The petitions arose from a series of disputes involving contested rent claims, recovery of possession, and rights of occupancy over Waqf properties across Gujarat. The institutions had approached the Gujarat State Waqf Tribunal under Section 83 of the Waqf Act, 1995, seeking eviction of tenants or alleged encroachers and allied reliefs such as recovery of profits.
Upholding the tribunal’s approach, the High Court observed that the proceedings initiated by the Waqf institutions were adversarial in nature and involved judicial determination of rights and obligations. In such circumstances, the court said, applications filed under Section 83 effectively assume the character of a plaint or suit and therefore attract the provisions of the Gujarat Court Fees Act, 2004.
The court noted that the tribunal had, at the outset, directed the Waqf plaintiffs to correct the valuation of their suits and deposit the requisite court fees, with a clear warning that non-compliance would lead to rejection of the plaints. That initial order was never challenged before a higher forum. When the institutions failed to rectify the valuation or pay the deficit fees, the tribunal rejected the plaints through separate orders in 2024.
Justice Doshi held that, in the absence of a timely challenge to the initial directions on valuation and court fees, the subsequent rejection of the plaints could not be assailed. The High Court found no illegality, jurisdictional error, or infirmity in the tribunal’s decisions warranting interference in its revisional jurisdiction.
Addressing the argument that the Waqf Act is silent on court fees, the court pointed to Section 1(5) of the Gujarat Court Fees Act, which makes the statute applicable to all courts and public offices in the state unless a special law provides otherwise. It also relied on Section 4 of the Act, which bars the filing or recording of documents in any court unless the prescribed fee is paid.
The High Court further emphasized that the Waqf Tribunal is deemed to be a civil court, vested with all powers of a civil court for trying suits and executing decrees or orders. Merely describing the initiating pleading as an “application,” it said, does not change its substance when it seeks adjudication of competing rights.
Rejecting the plea for a general exemption, the court clarified that there is no uniform or blanket rule exempting proceedings under Section 83 of the Waqf Act from court fees in Gujarat. Each case must be assessed based on its nature and the reliefs claimed.
The petitions before the High Court also stemmed from other tribunal directions, including orders asking certain petitioners to deposit litigation expenses, refund emoluments received as officers of the Gujarat State Waqf Board, and applications seeking exclusion of specific reliefs from valuation for court fees. All such challenges were ultimately turned down, bringing an end to the batch of cases before the High Court.
