Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K Vinod Chandran on Wednesday (January 28) held that Waqf Tribunals can adjudicate disputes only concerning properties notified in the “list of auqaf” or entered in the Waqf Board’s register under the Waqf Act, and not controversies over properties that are unregistered. Setting aside the Telangana High Court’s order that had upheld a Tribunal injunction, the Court rejected the injunction suit filed before the Tribunal, while leaving open the issue of whether the premises constitute a waqf to be pursued in accordance with law.

The dispute arose from a suit for permanent injunction filed before the Wakf Tribunal concerning a portion of a residential apartment complex alleged to be used as a mosque. The respondent asserted that an area on the ground floor had been enclosed and used for offering prayers since 2008, with the participation of the original landowner and builder, and that access to the premises was obstructed in 2021. The appellants, who were owners of the property, denied the existence of any mosque and contended that no such religious structure was reflected in the sanctioned building plan.

Also Read: Release On Probation Does Not Erase Conviction Stigma In Departmental Proceedings: Supreme Court

An application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the appellants seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the property was neither notified in the list of auqaf nor registered under the Wakf Act, 1995, and therefore the Wakf Tribunal lacked jurisdiction. The Tribunal rejected the application, and the High Court affirmed that decision, holding that the pleadings disclosed a claim of “waqf by user.” Aggrieved, the appellants approached the Supreme Court challenging the assumption of jurisdiction by the Tribunal.

The Court examined the statutory scheme of the Wakf Act, 1995, and observed that “the jurisdiction, to determine whether or not a property is a waqf property, inheres in the Tribunal only if the particular property is specified as waqf property in the ‘list of auqaf’.”

While analysing Section 83 of the Act, the Court stated that “there is nothing in Section 83 to suggest that it pushes the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil courts beyond what has been provided for in Section 6(5), Section 7 and Section 85 of the Act.” It further recorded that “Section 83 does not by itself confer any jurisdiction on the Tribunal and it merely enables the constitution of the Tribunal by the State.”

On the scope of the bar under Section 85, the Court observed that “there is no absolute and all-pervasive ouster of jurisdiction of the Civil Court even under Section 85 of the Act of 1995.” It clarified that “the exclusion of jurisdiction of the civil courts is limited only to matters that are required by the Act to be determined by a Tribunal.”

Dealing with the effect of the 2013 amendment, the Court stated that “the amendment Act of 2013 removes the sub-stratum of the decision in Ramesh Gobindram only to the extent of the absence found of jurisdiction to remove encroachers.” It further observed that “in no other manner does the amendment interfere with the principle stated of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under the Act of 1995.”

On conflicting precedents, Anis Fatma Begum v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2010), which was followed in Rashid Wali Beg v. Farid Pindari (2022) held that Section 83(1) confers expansive, all-encompassing jurisdiction on the Tribunal to decide "any dispute, question or other matter relating to a waqf or waqf property," even for unlisted properties. While in another precedent the Supreme Court in Ramesh Gobindram v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf, (2010) 8 SCC 726, held that a Waqf Tribunal’s jurisdiction is confined to matters specifically entrusted to it under the Act. The Court clarified that Section 83 is only an enabling provision for setting up Tribunals and does not, by itself, confer an expansive or independent jurisdiction.

Applying the law to the facts, the Court noted that “a bare reading of the plaint would indicate that neither is the property specified in the 'list of auqaf' as published in Chapter II nor registered under Chapter V and hence 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.”

The Court observed: “the decisions of this Court in…Rashid Wali Beg specifically dealing with Section 83(1) extracted only the words “for the determination of any dispute, question or other matter relating to a wakf or wakf property” and omitted the words “under this Act”. The wakf or wakf properties should thus be having a status under the Act which is possible only by inclusion in the 'list of auqaf' which as of now includes a list published after a survey under Chapter II or a registration made under Chapter V… We hence respectfully affirm the principle of jurisdiction conferred on the Tribunal under the Waqf Act, 1995 and the ouster of jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Section 85 of the said Act to be, as considered and declared in Ramesh Gobindram.”

Also Read: State Largesse Cannot Be Granted To One Person To Create Monopoly: Andhra Pradesh High Court APSRTC Tender For Enabling One Person To Secure Multiple Shops

The Court directed that “the injunction simpliciter sought for before the Tribunal does not fall within its jurisdiction. The plaint has to be rejected,” while allowing “the application of the defendant under Order VII, Rule 11.  The order of the Tribunal, ascertaining jurisdiction and that of the High Court, affirming it are set aside.”

“The Appeal is allowed, rejecting the suit filed before the Tribunal, leaving the question of whether the scheduled property is a waqf or not open to be agitated in accordance with law. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellants: Mr. C.A. Sundaram, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pranab Kumar Mullick, AOR Ms. Soma Mullick, Adv. Mr. S.N. Shakeel, Adv. Mr. Venkaiah Naidu, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Adv. Mr. Hemant Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. S. Niranjan Reddy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anirudh Wadhwa, Adv. Mr. Debarshi Chakraborty, Adv. Ms. Akhila P., Adv. Mr. Vipul Kumar, AOR

Case Title: Habib Alladin & Ors. v. Mohammed Ahmed
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 90
Case Number: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 2937 of 2022
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar, Justice K. Vinod Chandran