Waqf Tribunal Can't Entertain Claims Over Properties Not Specified In 'List Of Auquf' Or Not Registered Under Waqf Act : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (January 28) ruled that Waqf Tribunals have jurisdiction only over properties notified in the “list of auqaf” or registered under the Waqf Act, and not over disputes concerning unregistered properties.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K Vinod Chandran set aside the Telangana High Court's judgment, which affirmed the grant of an injunction by the Waqf Tribunal in relation to the property unregistered under the Waqf Act.

Disagreeing with the impugned judgment, the Court observed:

“a bare reading of the plaint would indicate that neither is the property specified in the 'list of auqaf' as published in Chapter II nor registered under Chapter V and hence 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 judgment authored by Justice Chandran tried to resolve a long-standing conflict between two competing lines of precedents.  One line of precedents such as Anis Fatma Begum v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2010), which was followed in Rashid Wali Beg v. Farid Pindari (2022), held that Section 83(1) confers expansive, all-encompassing jurisdiction on the Tribunal to decide "any dispute, question or other matter relating to a waqf or waqf property," even for unlisted properties.

Whereas, in another line of precedent i.e., in Ramesh Gobindram v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf, (2010) 8 SCC 726, it was held that the Tribunal's jurisdiction is specific and limited to matters expressly conferred by the Act. Section 83 is merely an enabling provision for constituting Tribunals, not an independent source of wide jurisdiction.

The Court essentially restored the principle laid down in Ramesh Gobindram(supra) as the governing law.

“the decisions of this Court in…Rashid Wali Beg specifically dealing with Section 83(1) extracted only the words “for the determination of any dispute, question or other matter relating to a wakf or wakf property” and omitted the words “under this Act”. The wakf or wakf properties should thus be having a status under the Act which is possible only by inclusion in the 'list of auqaf' which as of now includes a list published after a survey under Chapter II or a registration made under Chapter V… We hence respectfully affirm the principle of jurisdiction conferred on the Tribunal under the Waqf Act, 1995 and the ouster of jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Section 85 of the said Act to be, as considered and declared in Ramesh Gobindram.”, the court observed.

Background

The case arose from a suit for permanent injunction filed before the Waqf Tribunal, where the Respondent/plaintiff claimed that a room in a residential complex had, by long religious use, become a mosque in 2008 and therefore constituted waqf property. It was undisputed that the property was neither included in the statutory list of auqaf published under Section 5(2) nor registered under Section 37 of the Act. Despite this, the Waqf Tribunal entertained the suit and granted relief, which was subsequently affirmed by the High Court.

Challenging these orders, the appellant contended before the Supreme Court that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to even examine whether the property was a waqf, as it had never been notified or registered under the Act.

Accepting this argument, the Court held that the Tribunal had no authority to entertain the suit and that the plaint itself was liable to be rejected for want of jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the orders of the Waqf Tribunal and the High Court, thereby rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for want of jurisdiction.

Cause Title: Habib Alladin & Ors. Versus Mohammed Ahmed

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 88

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Mr. C.A. Sundaram, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pranab Kumar Mullick, AOR Ms. Soma Mullick, Adv. Mr. S.N. Shakeel, Adv. Mr. Venkaiah Naidu, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Adv. Mr. Hemant Kumar, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. S. Niranjan Reddy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anirudh Wadhwa, Adv. Mr. Debarshi Chakraborty, Adv. Ms. Akhila P., Adv. Mr. Vipul Kumar, AOR