Supreme Court: Waqf Tribunal Jurisdiction Limited to Listed or Registered Properties
New Delhi:
In a significant ruling clarifying the scope of adjudication under the Waqf Act, 1995, the Supreme Court of India has held that Waqf Tribunals cannot entertain disputes relating to properties that are neither specified in the official “list of auqaf” nor registered under the Act. The Court further ruled that civil courts continue to have jurisdiction over disputes involving such properties.
The judgment was delivered by a Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, setting aside contrary findings of the High Court and the Waqf Tribunal.
Table of Contents
Background of the Case
The appeal arose from a dispute between Habib Alladin and others and Mohammed Ahmed, where a Waqf Tribunal had granted an injunction over a property claimed to be waqf land. The Tribunal assumed jurisdiction even though the property was not included in the list of auqaf and not registered under the Waqf Act. The High Court upheld the Tribunal’s view, prompting the appeal before the Supreme Court.
Tribunal’s Jurisdiction Strictly Limited
The Supreme Court categorically ruled that the jurisdiction of a Waqf Tribunal is strictly governed by the provisions of the Waqf Act and cannot be expanded beyond what the statute expressly permits. The Bench observed:
“The decision as to whether the property is a waqf property or not cannot be decided by the Tribunal since the property is not one specified in the ‘list of auqaf’, which is the mandatory requirement under Section 6(1) and Section 7(1) of the Waqf Act of 1995 to approach the Tribunal.”
The Court clarified that only properties included in the list of auqaf under Chapter II or registered under Chapter V of the Act fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Any claim relating to unlisted or unregistered property cannot be adjudicated by the Tribunal merely because a party alleges it to be waqf property.
Civil Courts Still Have Jurisdiction
Addressing the bar on civil court jurisdiction under Section 85 of the Waqf Act, the Supreme Court held that such exclusion applies only when the Tribunal is empowered to decide the dispute under the Act. The Bench explained:
“Section 83 of the Act cannot be considered as a provision conferring jurisdiction on the Tribunal with respect to matters in addition to which jurisdiction has already been conferred under the other provisions of the Act.”
The Court further noted that even where Tribunal orders are given statutory finality, courts must examine whether the Tribunal has the power to grant reliefs typically available in civil suits. If such power is absent, civil court jurisdiction cannot be deemed excluded.
Rejection of Tribunal Proceedings
In the present case, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and rejected the plaint filed before the Waqf Tribunal under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, holding that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. The Court reiterated that the appropriate forum for such disputes is the civil court.
Legal Implications of the Ruling
The judgment lays down a clear and binding principle:
- Waqf Tribunals have jurisdiction only over properties specified in the list of auqaf or registered under the Waqf Act.
- Unlisted or unregistered properties cannot be brought before Waqf Tribunals.
- Civil courts retain jurisdiction over disputes involving such properties.
The ruling restores the statutory balance between specialized tribunals and ordinary civil courts, ensuring that Tribunals function strictly within the limits prescribed by law.
Way Forward
The decision is expected to have far-reaching consequences for waqf litigation across the country. Waqf Boards and litigants must now ensure that statutory requirements of listing and registration are fulfilled before invoking Tribunal jurisdiction. The ruling also safeguards property owners from being subjected to Tribunal proceedings without statutory backing.
ALSO READ: “Supreme Court Stays UGC Equity Regulations 2026; Flags Vagueness, Exclusion and Risk of Social Division”
READ JUDGEMENT
