Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-000582-000582 – 2026 |
| Diary Number | 1776/2022 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR |
| Bench |
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority on Wakf Tribunal and civil courts interpreting scope of jurisdiction under Wakf Act 1995 |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Statutory interpretation of Wakf Act 1995; civil procedure (Order VII Rule 11 CPC) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Wakf Tribunal can determine only those disputes expressly conferred by the Act—primarily questions as to whether a property is waqf property if included in the “List of Auqaf” (Section 6 & 7) or disputes under specific provisions (e.g., removal of encroachers under Section 54). Section 83 does not by itself confer standalone jurisdiction; it merely empowers State Governments to constitute Tribunals. Section 85 ousts civil-court jurisdiction only in matters entrusted to the Tribunal. The 2013 amendment, which expanded the definition of “List of Auqaf” and added express reference to eviction rights under Section 54, is clarificatory and does not broaden Section 83’s scope. Consequently, injunctive relief concerning non-listed or unregistered properties must be sought in civil courts, and a plaint before the Tribunal should be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 where jurisdiction is absent. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The 1st appellant developed an apartment complex; respondent alleged that a ground-floor area built in 2008 functioned as a mosque and waqf in which public prayers were held, but entry was obstructed in 2021. Respondent sought a perpetual injunction before the Wakf Tribunal. Appellants filed an Order VII Rule 11 application, contending no mosque/waqf existed and premises were neither notified under Chapter II nor registered under Chapter V of the Act. The Tribunal and High Court held jurisdiction; the Supreme Court allowed the application, rejecting the plaint for lack of tribunal jurisdiction. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Wakf Tribunals; all civil courts (including subordinate courts) adjudicating Wakf Act disputes |
| Persuasive For | High Courts and Tribunals in interpreting scope of jurisdiction under Wakf Act 1995 |
| Overrules | Anis Fatma Begum v. W.B. Wakf Board; Rashid Wali Beg v. Farid Pindari |
| Distinguishes | P.V. Ibrahim Haji v. Akkode Jumayath Palli Paripalana Committee; Pritpal Singh v. Punjab Wakf Board (interpretation of Section 83) |
| Follows | Ramesh Gobindram v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf; Bhanwar Lal v. Rajasthan Board of Muslim Wakf; Mahesh Kumar v. Haryana Wakf Board; Mumtaz Yarud Dowla Wakf v. Badam Balakrishna |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that Tribunal jurisdiction under Wakf Act 1995 is strictly limited to properties in the “List of Auqaf” (notified under Section 5(2) or registered under Section 37).
- Holds Section 83 merely enables constitution of Tribunals and does not independently grant jurisdiction over any wakf property or dispute.
- Confirms that the 2013 amendment extends the definition of “List of Auqaf” and expressly adds eviction powers under Section 54 but does not broaden Section 83’s ambit.
- Establishes that injunction relief for non-listed or unregistered properties must be pursued in civil courts; tribunal plaints lacking jurisdiction are liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11.
- Advises practitioners to rely on this decision to challenge tribunal jurisdiction in threshold jurisdictional pleas and to guide appropriate forum selection.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Jurisdictional Divergence: Multiple coordinate-bench rulings conflicted on whether Section 83 confers omnibus tribunal jurisdiction over any wakf/property dispute.
- Statutory Scheme: Sections 6 & 7 permit tribunal adjudication only on status of properties in the “List of Auqaf”; Section 85 bars civil courts only in matters required to be determined by Tribunal under the Act.
- Section 83 Analysis: Ramesh Gobindram (2010) held Section 83 is an enabling provision; subsequent decisions expanding its scope (Anis Fatma Begum, Rashid Wali Beg) conflict with the two-judge ratio and were wrongly decided.
- 2013 Amendment: Substituted definition of “List of Auqaf” to include registered properties and expressly added eviction powers under Section 54; held clarificatory, retrospective and limited to encroachment jurisdiction.
- Conclusion: Reaffirm Ramesh Gobindram’s ratio; Section 83 does not independently expand tribunal jurisdiction. Injunctive relief for non-listed properties must be sought in civil court. Application under Order VII Rule 11 to reject plaint is proper.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellants)
- No wakf or mosque exists on the premises; property is neither notified under Chapter II nor registered under Chapter V.
- Sections 6 & 7 restrict tribunal jurisdiction to properties in the “List of Auqaf”; Section 83 does not confer independent power to grant injunction simpliciter.
- Declaratory relief as to wakf status must be sought in civil court; tribunal lacks competency in absence of notification/registration.
- Reliance on Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy (vexatious suit for non-notified property) and Faqir Mohamad Shah (waqf by user demands immemorial use).
- Urges reconsideration of Rashid Wali Beg as conflicting with Ramesh Gobindram.
Respondent (Plaintiff)
- Wakf status can be conferred by three modes: Chapter II survey & notification, Chapter V registration, or adjudication under Section 83.
- Section 83 empowers tribunal to determine any dispute relating to wakf or wakf property irrespective of notification/registration.
- Chapter II decennial surveys are defective; interim waqf by user should be adjudicated by tribunal.
- Amendment Act 2013 broadened scope, making tribunal jurisdiction plenary.
- Relies on Syed Mohd. Salie Labbai v. Mohd. Hanifa and M. Siddiq (Ram Janmabhumi Temple).
Factual Background
The 1st appellant developed an apartment complex under a development agreement. The respondent claimed that in 2008 an area on the ground floor was enclosed as a mosque (waqf by user) and public prayers were held. In 2021 appellants obstructed entry, prompting the respondent to seek a perpetual injunction before the Wakf Tribunal. Appellants challenged jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that the premises were neither notified in the “List of Auqaf” nor registered, and contended that the civil court is the proper forum.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 2(r)(i) (waqf by user) and Section 3(g) (“List of Auqaf”) define waqf and the properties subject to Act.
- Sections 5(2) & Part II: Survey & notification procedure to list waqf properties.
- Section 37 & Chapter V: Registration by Waqf Board creates waqf status.
- Sections 6(1) & 7(1): Tribunal jurisdiction to decide disputes on status of notified/registered properties; decisions final.
- Section 83: Empowers State to constitute Tribunals for disputes “under this Act”—enabling provision, not standalone jurisdiction conferral.
- Section 54 (amended): Tribunal power to remove encroachers (including tenants) on demonstration of unauthorized occupation.
- Section 85: Bars civil courts, revenue courts or other authorities from entertaining suits on matters required by or under the Act to be determined by Tribunal.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No separate dissenting or concurring opinions; the judgment is unanimous.
Procedural Innovations
None. The Court applies established principles of statutory interpretation and threshold pleading under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Alert Indicators
- 🚨 Breaking Precedent – Overrules Anis Fatma Begum and Rashid Wali Beg interpretations of Section 83
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Follows Ramesh Gobindram v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf (2010)
- 🔄 Conflicting Decisions – Resolves conflict among coordinate benches on tribunal jurisdiction under Section 83