Introduction
The Supreme Court of India recently delivered an important judgment clarifying the jurisdiction of Waqf Tribunals under the Waqf Act, 1995. In Habib Alladin & Ors. v. Mohammed Ahmed, the Court held that Waqf Tribunals cannot adjudicate disputes relating to properties that are neither included in the statutory list of waqf properties nor registered under the Act.
The ruling resolves a long-standing judicial conflict regarding the scope of tribunal jurisdiction and reaffirms the principle that tribunals derive their authority strictly from the statute.
Background of the Case
The dispute originated from a civil suit for permanent injunction filed before the Waqf Tribunal. The plaintiff claimed that a room located within a residential complex had gradually been used as a mosque since 2008 and therefore should be treated as waqf property.
However, it was undisputed that the property:
Was not included in the list of auqaf published under the Waqf Act, 1995
Was not registered as waqf property under the statutory framework
Despite this, the Waqf Tribunal entertained the suit and granted relief in favour of the plaintiff. The Telangana High Court subsequently upheld the Tribunal’s decision.
The matter was then challenged before the Supreme Court.
Key Legal Issue
The central question before the Court was:
Can a Waqf Tribunal exercise jurisdiction over properties that have not been formally recognised as waqf under the Waqf Act?
This issue arose due to conflicting judicial precedents interpreting Section 83 of the Waqf Act, which establishes Waqf Tribunals.
Statutory Framework
The Court examined several provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995, including:
Section 83 – Establishes Waqf Tribunals for adjudicating disputes relating to waqf property
Section 5(2) – Provides for publication of the list of auqaf after survey
Section 37 – Deals with registration of waqf properties
Section 85 – Bars the jurisdiction of civil courts in matters that fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction
The crucial phrase considered by the Court was “under this Act” in Section 83, which determines the scope of the Tribunal’s authority.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court clarified that the jurisdiction of Waqf Tribunals is not unlimited. Instead, it is confined to properties that have acquired legal status as waqf through statutory procedures.
The Court observed that:
A property must either be included in the official list of auqaf or registered under the Act to be treated as waqf property.
If a property has not acquired such status, the Tribunal cannot even determine whether it is waqf property.
In such cases, the dispute must be decided by ordinary civil courts, not the Tribunal.
Conflict Between Previous Judgments
The case also addressed a conflict between earlier Supreme Court decisions.
Ramesh Gobindram v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf (2010)
Adopted a restrictive interpretation, limiting tribunal jurisdiction.
Anis Fatma Begum v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2010) and Rashid Wali Beg v. Farid Pindari (2022)
Suggested a broader interpretation, allowing tribunals to decide disputes even involving unregistered waqf properties.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle laid down in Ramesh Gobindram, holding that the expansive interpretation in later cases was incorrect.
Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court concluded that the Waqf Tribunal lacked jurisdiction in the present case because the property was neither listed nor registered as waqf property under the Act.
Accordingly, the Court:
Set aside the orders of the Waqf Tribunal and the Telangana High Court
Held that the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure
Clarified that disputes relating to such properties must be pursued before civil courts
Significance of the Judgment
This decision has significant implications for waqf litigation in India.
First, it clarifies the jurisdictional boundaries of Waqf Tribunals, ensuring that tribunals do not exercise authority beyond what the statute permits.
Second, it reinforces the importance of statutory recognition of waqf property through registration or inclusion in the official list.
Finally, the judgment provides greater certainty for litigants by resolving conflicting judicial interpretations and restoring a clear statutory framework for adjudicating waqf disputes.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling marks an important step in clarifying the legal framework governing waqf property disputes. By reaffirming that Waqf Tribunals can only exercise jurisdiction over properties recognised under the Waqf Act, the Court has reinforced the principle that tribunals must operate strictly within statutory limits.
For property owners, religious institutions, and legal practitioners, the judgment highlights the importance of formal recognition and registration of waqf properties before invoking the jurisdiction of Waqf Tribunals.