The Supreme Court has ruled that the Waqf Act, 1995 does not automatically remove the jurisdiction of civil courts. It clarified that Waqf Tribunals can decide only those matters specifically granted to them under the law, not all waqf-related disputes.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday clearly held that civil courts do not automatically lose their power to hear cases merely because of Section 85 of the Waqf Act, 1995, which bars the jurisdiction of civil courts in certain matters. The ruling came in the case of Habib Alladin vs Mohammad Ahmed, where the Court examined the limits of the powers given to Waqf Tribunals under the law.
A Bench comprising Justices K Vinod Chandran and Sanjay Kumar clarified that the Waqf Tribunal can only decide matters that are specifically given to it under the Waqf Act. The Court made it clear that civil courts are not completely excluded from deciding disputes related to waqf properties.
While explaining the scope of Section 85, the Court said,
“There is hence no absolute and all-pervasive ouster of jurisdiction of the Civil Court even under Section 85 of the Act of 1995,”
making it clear that civil courts still have authority in matters not expressly assigned to the Tribunal.
The Bench further explained that Section 83 of the Waqf Act should not be misunderstood as granting wide powers to the Tribunal. According to the Court, this provision only allows the government to set up tribunals and does not automatically give them authority over every dispute related to waqf properties. The Court observed that the section cannot be treated as a blanket provision covering all kinds of waqf-related disputes.
The judgment specifically stated,
“Section 83 does not confer any jurisdiction on the Tribunal, either/or an omnibus consideration of any dispute, question or other matter related to waqf or of waqf property, nor with respect to eviction of a tenant or determination of the rights and obligations of lessor and lessee of waqf property. It merely enables the constitution of the Tribunal,”
thereby narrowing the scope of the Tribunal’s powers.
On the important question of deciding whether a property is waqf or not, the Supreme Court ruled that the Tribunal can examine this issue only if the property is already mentioned in the official ‘list of auqaf’ prepared under the Act.
The Court clarified that just because the Waqf Act applies to all waqfs, it does not automatically give jurisdiction to the Tribunal in every dispute.
In this context, the Bench explained,
“The definition of ‘waqf’ under Section 85, 3(r) and the applicability of the Act of 1995 on all auqaf (Section 2) does not also determine jurisdiction which, in resolution to disputes with respect to a property being a waqf or not is expressly conferred on the Tribunal, only with respect to those properties specified in the ‘list of Auqaf’,”
underlining that jurisdiction depends strictly on statutory provisions.
The Supreme Court also discussed the issue of removing encroachments from waqf properties. It clarified that this power is specifically provided under Sections 54(3) and 54(4) of the Act and can be exercised only by the Chief Executive Officer of the Waqf Board. The Court clearly stated that this power does not arise from Section 83.
The Bench also addressed the effect of the 2013 amendment to the Waqf Act. It held that the amendment changed the legal position only in a limited way and did not broadly expand the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The Court noted,
“The amendment Act of 2013 removes the sub-stratum of the decision in Ramesh Gobindram only to the extent of the absence found of the jurisdiction conferred on the Tribunal to remove encroachers and does not, in any other manner, interfere with the principle stated of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under the Act of 1995,”
thereby reaffirming earlier legal principles.
The appeal before the Supreme Court arose from a civil suit filed for a permanent injunction. The suit sought to restrain interference with religious prayers in a space claimed to be a mosque situated on the ground floor of a residential apartment complex.
The defendants in the case had filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking rejection of the plaint. They argued that the premises were neither registered under the Waqf Act nor notified in the official list of auqaf, and therefore, the Waqf Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the matter.
However, the Waqf Tribunal rejected the application. The High Court also refused to interfere, holding that the plaint disclosed a case of “waqf by user”, meaning that the property had allegedly acquired waqf status through long-standing religious use.
In its judgment delivered on Wednesday, the Supreme Court disagreed with this approach. The Court held that since the property was neither included in the list of auqaf under Chapter II nor registered under Chapter V of the Act, the Tribunal had no authority to decide whether the property was waqf property.
ALSO READ: CBI Tightens Noose: Fresh Charge Sheet Filed in Delhi Waqf Board Corruption Case
The Court categorically ruled,
“The injunction simpliciter sought for before the Tribunal does not fall within its jurisdiction and the plaint has to be rejected,”
and accordingly set aside the orders passed by both the Tribunal and the High Court.
As a result, the Supreme Court rejected the suit filed before the Waqf Tribunal. However, it clarified that the issue of whether the property is a waqf or not remains open and can be raised before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.
