Waqf Tribunal Cannot Decide Claims Over Non-Waqf Properties

The Waqf Act, 1995 was enacted to provide a specialised statutory framework for the administration, supervision, and adjudication of disputes concerning waqf properties. Over time, however, an expansive interpretation of the jurisdiction of Waqf Tribunals led to considerable uncertainty, particularly in cases where properties were claimed to be waqf by user, but were neither notified in the list of auqaf nor registered with the Waqf Board.

This ambiguity has now been decisively resolved by the Supreme Court of India in Habib Alladin & Ors. v. Mohammed Ahmed (2026 INSC 90). The Court held in categorical terms that unless a property is brought within the statutory framework of the Waqf Act through notification or registration, the Waqf Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes relating to such property. This judgment restores doctrinal clarity on civil court jurisdiction, reinforces statutory discipline under the Waqf Act, and prevents jurisdictional overreach by specialised tribunals.

Statutory Scheme of the Waqf Act, 1995

Concept of Waqf under the Act

Section 3(r) of the Waqf Act defines a waqf as a permanent dedication of property for purposes recognised by Muslim law as pious, religious, or charitable. While Muslim law recognises express dedication and waqf by long-standing users, the Waqf Act does not leave the matter to informal claims alone. Instead, it establishes a statutory mechanism for the identification and recognition of wakf properties.

Survey, Notification, and Registration

The Act contemplates two principal methods by which a property attains legal recognition as a waqf:

1. Survey and Notification (Sections 4–6)

A statutory survey is conducted, culminating in the publication of a List of Auqaf under Section 5. Disputes regarding properties included in this list fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Waqf Tribunal under Sections 6 and 7.

2. Registration with the Waqf Board (Chapter V)

Independent of surveys, properties may be registered with the Waqf Board and entered into the Register of Auqaf under Section 37.

The 2013 amendment clarified that both notified and registered properties form part of the legally recognised “list of auqaf.” Importantly, the Act does not contemplate adjudication of claims relating to properties outside these statutory channels.

Jurisdiction of Waqf Tribunal: A Limited and Statutory Power

Sections 6, 7, 83, and 85: Harmonious Construction

The jurisdiction of the Waqf Tribunal is often traced to Section 83, which refers to the determination of disputes “relating to a waqf or waqf property.” However, the Supreme Court has reiterated that this provision cannot be read in isolation. Sections 6 and 7 specifically restrict the Tribunal’s power to decide disputes only in respect of properties specified in the list of auqaf.

Section 85 bars the jurisdiction of civil courts only in respect of matters “required by or under this Act to be determined by a Tribunal.” Therefore, unless the Act expressly mandates tribunal adjudication, civil court jurisdiction remains intact.

Facts of the Case

The dispute arose from a residential apartment complex developed on privately owned land. The respondent claimed that a portion of the ground floor had been enclosed and used as a mosque since 2008 and that members of the public had been offering prayers there. When access was allegedly obstructed, the respondent approached the Waqf Tribunal seeking a permanent injunction.

Crucially:

• The property was never notified as waqf in the list of auqaf.
• It was not registered with the Waqf Board.
• No prior declaration existed recognising the premises as waqf property.

The defendants challenged the maintainability of the suit, arguing that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction. While the High Court accepted the plea of “waqf by user,” the matter reached the Supreme Court on appeal.

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Findings

1. Waqf Tribunal Is a Creature of Statute

The Court reaffirmed the foundational principle that tribunals have no inherent jurisdiction. Their authority must be strictly traced to statutory provisions. The Waqf Tribunal cannot assume jurisdiction merely because a religious use is asserted.

2. Section 83 Does Not Confer Unlimited Jurisdiction

Rejecting the expansive interpretation adopted in Anis Fatma Begum and followed in Rashid Wali Beg, the Court held that Section 83 is procedural and enabling, not jurisdiction-creating in isolation. It only operationalises adjudication where jurisdiction is otherwise conferred under the Act.

3. Properties Outside the Statutory List Are Beyond the Tribunal’s Reach

The Court decisively ruled that:

Disputes regarding properties not notified or registered as waqf cannot be adjudicated by the Waqf Tribunal.

• Such disputes must be decided by ordinary civil courts, which alone have the competence to adjudicate questions of title, possession, and declaration in respect of non-statutory waqf claims.

4. Waqf by User Requires Statutory Recognition

While Muslim law recognises waqf by user, the Court clarified that a mere user does not automatically bring a property within the Waqf Act. Without statutory recognition through a survey or registration, the Tribunal cannot assume jurisdiction.

5. Injunction Simpliciter Cannot Be Used to Bypass Jurisdiction

The Court cautioned against seeking injunctions before the Tribunal as a backdoor method to establish wakf status. A declaration of waqf status must precede any consequential relief, and such a declaration lies outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction when the property is unregistered.

Key Highlights of the Decision

The Supreme 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."

Reaffirmation of Civil Court Jurisdiction

A significant contribution of the judgment lies in its reaffirmation of the presumption in favour of civil court jurisdiction. The Court reiterated that:

• Ouster of civil court jurisdiction must be express and unambiguous.
• Ambiguity must be resolved in favour of civil courts.
• Special tribunals cannot expand their jurisdiction by implication.

This approach aligns with long-standing constitutional principles governing access to justice and separation of powers.

Impact of the 2013 Amendment

The Court clarified that the 2013 amendment, which expanded the definition of “list of auqaf” to include registered properties, was clarificatory and procedural. However, even after this amendment, the Tribunal’s jurisdiction remains confined to properties statutorily recognised as waqf.

The amendment did not authorise tribunals to adjudicate disputes concerning properties that have never entered the statutory framework.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Habib Alladin & Ors. v. Mohammed Ahmed marks a crucial corrective in waqf jurisprudence. By holding that unregistered and unnotified properties lie outside the jurisdiction of Waqf Tribunals, the Court has reaffirmed statutory discipline, protected private property rights, and restored the constitutional balance between specialised tribunals and civil courts.

The ruling ensures that religious use alone cannot displace statutory safeguards, and that adjudicatory authority flows strictly from legislative mandate, not from assertions of faith or long usage. In doing so, the judgment strengthens legal certainty and upholds the rule of law in property adjudication under the Waqf Act.

Important Link

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams