The Calcutta High Court affirmed that the Waqf Tribunal has jurisdiction over all suits involving Waqf or Waqf property, except where barred by statute. This ruling followed an application challenging the Waqf Tribunal’s order under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, emphasizing the Tribunal’s broad authority as per the amended Section 83 of the Act and Supreme Court precedent.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
KOLKATA: The Calcutta High Court has affirmed that the Waqf Tribunal has the jurisdiction to adjudicate all suits related to Waqf properties, regardless of the nature of the relief sought, unless explicitly barred by statute. This observation came in response to an application challenging the Waqf Tribunal’s decision to allow an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), which sought the rejection of a plaint.
A Single Bench of Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee stated-
“The Waqf Tribunal is established to resolve disputes, questions, and other matters concerning Waqf or Waqf property, including tenant evictions and rights and obligations of lessors and lessees. Following the 2013 Amendment to Section 83 of the Act, it is clear that the Tribunal has jurisdiction over all such issues. As affirmed by the Supreme Court in the Mumtaz Yarud Dowla Waqf case, the Tribunal can adjudicate every suit related to Waqf or Waqf property, regardless of the relief sought, unless prohibited by law.”
The Bench further emphasized that the existence of a specialized forum for the expedited resolution of Waqf property disputes should be respected.
“When disputes related to waqf properties are entertained by civil courts, despite the exclusion of jurisdiction under Section 85 of the Waqf Act, 1995, it results in multiple litigations and defeats the purpose of establishing specialized Tribunals for swift adjudication.”
-noted Justice Mukherjee.
Case Background
The dispute originated from the petitioner/plaintiff’s claim that the suit property was a Waqf property duly registered with the Waqf Board, West Bengal. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant’s father had been a monthly tenant on the land, which was part of the Waqf estate. After the father’s death, the defendant continued to occupy the premises.
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant violated Waqf laws by making significant alterations to the property, changing its nature and character, and converting it for unlawful commercial use. Additionally, the defendant was accused of subletting a significant portion of the estate to unauthorized occupants.
ALSO READ: ‘Unlawful’ Appointment of Delhi Waqf Board Administrator; Unregistered Lawyers’ Group Files PIL
As a result, the plaintiff served a notice to the defendant, terminating the tenancy and demanding khas possession of the property. Despite receiving the notice, the defendant allegedly failed to comply, prompting the plaintiff to file an eviction suit.
During the suit’s pendency, the defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, arguing that the suit was not maintainable as it was barred under Section 3AA of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, and Sections 6 and 7, read with Section 83 of the Waqf Act. The Tribunal accepted the defendant’s application and rejected the plaint, deeming it not maintainable. The plaintiff, dissatisfied with this decision, approached the High Court.
The High Court highlighted that-
“Allowing civil courts to entertain these disputes, despite the exclusion of jurisdiction under Section 85 of the Waqf Act, 1995, results in multiple litigations and undermines the purpose of establishing specialized Tribunals.”
The court highlighted the reliance on the Ramesh Govindram Case by Mr. Pathak but clarified its stance with reference to a more recent judgment.
“Mr. Pathak relied heavily on the judgment in the Ramesh Govindram case. However, a three-judge bench of the Apex Court in Kiran Devi vs. Bihar State Sunni Waqf Board and others (2021) 15 SCC 15 ruled that the ratio laid down in Ramesh Govindram cannot be employed as a magic wand to transfer proceedings related to Waqf property from one forum to another.”
-the court noted.
This delineation was crucial as it set the tone for the court’s interpretation of jurisdictional authority.
The court dismissed Mr. Pathak’s submission that the 1997 Act, being a special statute enacted by the state legislature, mandates that all disputes between landlords and tenants within Kolkata Municipal Corporation and municipal areas should be addressed by civil courts.
“Thus, I find no merit in Mr. Pathak’s argument that disputes between landlords and tenants within the limits of Kolkata Municipal Corporation and municipal areas should be adjudicated in civil courts, based on the Act of 1997 being a special statute enacted by the state legislature.”
-the court ruled.
Reaffirming the jurisdiction of the Waqf Tribunal, the court asserted-
“It is well-established that disputes concerning the recovery of possession from a tenant or encroacher are within the jurisdiction of the Waqf Tribunal, as per Section 83(1) of the 1995 Act.”
The court elaborated that the suit in question was not merely for eviction but also included a prayer for the declaration of the property as Waqf property and for the recovery of damages. This distinction placed the suit under both Section 6(1) and the newly inserted provision under Section 7(6) of the Amendment Act of 2013.
The court underscored the expanded powers of the Waqf Tribunal, stating-
“Section 7(6) of the Amendment Act of 1995 also grants the Tribunal the authority to assess damages and recover them as arrears of land revenue through the collector.”
This comprehensive authority was crucial in avoiding multiple legal proceedings across different courts.
“In this context, Mr. Galib, counsel for the Waqf Board, correctly pointed out that requiring the plaintiff to first approach the Tribunal to declare the property as Waqf, then go to the Civil Court for tenant eviction, and subsequently return to the Tribunal for damages recovery is impractical and burdensome.”
-the court observed.
ALSO READ: State Bar Council’s Strike & Rally on July 1 Against New Criminal Laws is Voluntary: Calcutta HC
Further strengthening its position, the court referred to the Amendment Act of 2013 which inserted the words “eviction of tenant” into Section 83(1), thus clarifying legislative intent.
“When the Parliament inserted the words ‘eviction of tenant’ in Section 83(1) through the Amendment Act of 2013, it clearly intended to empower the Waqf Tribunal with such authority.”
– the court elucidated.
Consequently, the Tribunal’s rejection of the plaint on grounds that the suit was barred by law was deemed –
“perverse and contrary to the provisions of the Waqf Act.”
