'Service Inam' Land Attached To Mosque Is Wakf Property, Can't Be Alienated : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday (April 24) has observed that lands attached to Mosques known as 'service imams' form part of the Wakf Property, and therefore cannot be alienated.

“It is undisputed and settled that lands granted as service inam for religious or charitable purposes partake the character of endowed property and are impressed with a public or religious trust, thereby restricting their alienability.”, observed a bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Augustine George Masih.

The Court set aside the Andhra Pradesh High Court's judgment, which had overturned the Wakf Tribunal's decision to annul the alienation of the 'service imam' in the Respondent's favour.

The case concerned a 3-acre parcel of land in the Kurnool district, with the central question being whether the land was a Wakf property (service inam), granted for religious services to a mosque, and therefore inalienable; or a Private property (personal inam), capable of lawful transfer through sale deeds.

The plaintiffs claimed ownership based on sale deeds executed in 1985 and 1996 and sought an injunction against the Board for their peaceful enjoyment. However, the Wakf Board contended that the land was historically dedicated for religious purposes and recorded as Wakf property.

A crucial turning point in the case was a 1945 partition deed, relied upon by the plaintiffs themselves to establish title; however, the partition deed mentioned the disputed property to be 'service inam'.

The Wakf Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff-Respondent's suit seeking a permanent injunction and declaration against the Appellant-defendant, as the Respondent failed to prove the title over the property claimed to have been purchased via a sale deed.

The High Court, however, overturned the Tribunal's decision and ruled in the plaintiff-Respondent's favour, noting that the Wakf Board failed to assert its title over, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court by the State Waqf Board.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Masih relied upon Sayyed Ali v. A.P. Wakf Board, (1998) 2 SCC 642 to note that “a grant of land for rendering religious or charitable services does not vest absolute title in the individual, and such grants, being for purposes recognised under Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable, would clothe the property with the character of Wakf.”

Further, the Court categorically noted that when the burden to prove the title over the property was not discharged by the Respondent-plaintiff, then the Appellant-defendant's weakness to assert title over the property wouldn't benefit the Respondent to seek an injunction and declaration of title.

“It is also necessary to advert to the settled principle that a plaintiff seeking declaration of title must succeed on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the defence. The Respondents, in the present case, having approached the Tribunal seeking declaration and injunction, were required to establish a clear and lawful title to the suit property. However, as noticed hereinabove, the very document relied upon by them militates against their claim. The High Court, in reversing the findings of the Tribunal, has effectively shifted the burden upon the Appellant, which, in the facts of the present case, is legally untenable.”, the court observed.

In terms of the aforesaid, the appeal was allowed, and the judgment passed by the Wakf Tribunal was restored.

“we are of the considered opinion that the suit schedule property is “service inam” land attached to a religious institution and partakes the character of Wakf property. The Respondents have failed to establish any valid title or lawful possession so as to entitle them to the reliefs claimed.”, the court held.

Cause Title: A.P. STATE WAKF BOARD THROUGH CHAIRPERSON VERSUS JANAKI BUSAPPA

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 423

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) Mr. Shoeb Alam, Sr. Adv. Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, AOR Mr. Nishant Sharma, Adv. Mrs D. Tejaswi Reddy, Adv. Ms. Adviteeya, Adv. Mr. Dev Sareen, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Guru Krishnakumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rama Subba Raju, Adv. Mr. Gopinathan Ep, Adv. Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR Mr. D. Abhinav Rao, AOR Mr. Abhisek Das, Adv. Mr. Aniket Singh, Adv. Ms. Megha Shaw, Adv. Mr. M.B. Rama Subba Raju, Adv. Mr. Anoop Prakash Awasthi, AOR Mr. Shubham Dubey, Adv. Mr. Ashish Jha, Adv. Mr. Rushikanta Dash, Adv. Ms. Jasleen Kaur, Adv.