The Madras High Court held that the mere presence of a Dargah on land does not automatically place the property under the Waqf Board’s control. The Court ruled that the Board must first establish, in accordance with law, that the property is a valid Waqf before claiming jurisdiction.
In a significant ruling clarifying the scope of the Waqf Board’s authority, the Madras High Court has held that the mere existence of a Dargah on a piece of land does not automatically vest control of that land with the Waqf Board. The Court emphasized that the Board must first establish, through the procedure prescribed by law, that the property is in fact a Waqf before asserting jurisdiction over it.
Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi delivered the ruling while allowing an appeal filed against an order of the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board concerning the management of the Sarkar Syed Habibullah Sha Khadari Arif Rabbani Hazarath Dargah situated in Triplicane, Chennai. The judgment, delivered on June 5, underscored that religious structures such as Dargahs cannot automatically be treated as Waqf institutions merely because they are associated with Islamic religious practices.
ALSO READ: Uttarakhand Waqf Board Moves Supreme Court to Support Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025
Factual Backgrounds and Submissions of Parties
The dispute arose after the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board passed a resolution appointing A. Shainsha as Mutawalli of the Dargah and directed that the institution be registered under the Waqf Act. The appellant, who claimed to be the hereditary Mutawalli and whose family had allegedly maintained the Dargah for more than four decades, challenged the Board’s action. He contended that the property on which the Dargah stood belonged to the Public Works Department (PWD) and that the Waqf Board had acted without conducting the mandatory survey or establishing that the property was Waqf land.
According to the appellant, the Dargah is nearly 240 years old and has been managed by his family for generations. He argued that the Board lacked the authority to appoint another Mutawalli or direct registration of the institution without first following the statutory requirements laid down under the Waqf Act. The appellant further maintained that no material existed to show that the land had ever been legally dedicated as Waqf property.
The Tamil Nadu Waqf Board defended its decision by asserting that the land and adjoining areas originally belonged to the Dargah and had subsequently come under the control of municipal authorities and the Public Works Department. The Board also informed the Court that the process for registration of the Dargah under Section 36(4) of the Waqf Act was underway.
The Public Works Department, however, took a contrary stand. It informed the Court that the land was classified as government poramboke land and had been allotted rent-free to the Bharat Scouts and Guides. The Department further alleged that the registration of the Dargah property had been undertaken without obtaining its consent and that there was no evidence demonstrating that the land had ever been dedicated as Waqf property.
Observations of the High Court:
After examining the records, the High Court found that there was no material to indicate that the property had been included in any notified list of auqaf. The Court noted that neither a statutory survey had been conducted nor had the property been notified as Waqf land through publication in the Government Gazette, both of which are essential requirements under the law.
ALSO READ: Sale of Waqf Property by Tenant| Delhi HC Seeks Response from Police & Waqf Board
Emphasizing the importance of the statutory procedure, the Court observed that:
“Conducting of the surveys before declaring a property a Waqf property is a sine qua non.”
The judgment stressed that the legal process cannot be bypassed merely because a religious structure exists on a particular parcel of land.
The Court further clarified that not every grave, tomb, or Dargah automatically qualifies as Waqf property. Referring to the legal requirements governing the creation of a Waqf, the Court stated that there must be a permanent dedication of property by a Muslim for a religious, pious, or charitable purpose recognized under Muslim law.
Justice Thilakavadi observed,
“Mere existence of a Dargah does not automatically confer jurisdiction upon the Board unless the institution is established or treated as a Waqf in accordance with law.”
The Court highlighted that a distinction must always be maintained between a private family tomb and a public religious institution that has been legally dedicated as a Waqf.
The Court further remarked,
“If a Dargah has never been surveyed, registered or notified as Waqf, the Waqf Board ordinarily cannot assume automatic control merely because it is a Muslim Religious Institution.”
According to the Court, jurisdictional facts establishing the existence of a valid Waqf must first be proven before the Board can exercise administrative control over the institution or appoint a Mutawalli.
Another important aspect noted by the Court was that the appointment of a Mutawalli presupposes the existence of a legally recognized Waqf. Since the status of the property itself remained disputed, the Board could not proceed with such an appointment without first establishing its authority over the land.
The Court also noted that both sides were asserting competing claims regarding the management and ownership of the Dargah. In such circumstances, it held that the dispute ought to be adjudicated by a competent civil court before any administrative authority could exercise control over the institution.
Consequently, the High Court set aside the Waqf Board’s resolution appointing a new Mutawalli and its direction for registration of the Dargah under the Waqf Act. The Court concluded that the Board’s actions lacked the necessary legal foundation and were therefore unsustainable.
In its final observations, the Court stated,
“There is no legal document that the property was dedicated as Waqf. Therefore, the direction of the Board to the 5th respondent for registration of the Dargah under Section 36 (4) of the Act without prior survey is impermissible.”
The judgment is expected to have wider implications for disputes involving religious structures and Waqf claims, reaffirming that the Waqf Board must strictly comply with statutory requirements before asserting control over any property and that the existence of a Dargah alone cannot be treated as conclusive proof of Waqf status.
Case Title: Sarkar Syed Vs TN Waqf board
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE