The Supreme Court has clarified the precise boundaries of jurisdiction for Tribunals constituted under the Wakf Act, 1995, holding that such Tribunals cannot entertain suits for injunction unless the disputed property is formally included in the official list of auqaf or registered under Chapter V of the Act. This decision resolves a long-standing conflict among coordinate benches and reasserts the principle that statutory jurisdiction must be strictly construed.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose over an area on the ground floor of a residential apartment complex in Delhi, allegedly used as a mosque since 2008. The respondent, a member of the public, claimed continuous use of the space for prayers and sought a perpetual injunction against the appellants - owners of the complex - who allegedly obstructed access. The respondent did not allege formal dedication or registration of the property as a waqf, nor did he produce any documentary evidence of such status.
Procedural History
- 2021: Respondent filed a suit for perpetual injunction in the Civil Court, alleging obstruction of religious access.
- 2021: Appellants filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on grounds of lack of jurisdiction.
- 2021: The Civil Court rejected the application, holding the matter fell within the jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal.
- 2021: The High Court dismissed the revision, affirming the Tribunal’s jurisdiction based on the concept of ‘waqf by user’ under Section 3(r)(i) of the Wakf Act, 1995.
- 2022: Appellants filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court challenging the jurisdictional finding.
Relief Sought
The respondent sought a perpetual injunction restraining the appellants from interfering with access to the prayer space. The appellants sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC on the ground that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate a claim over a property not formally recognized as a waqf under the Act.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the Wakf Tribunal under the Wakf Act, 1995 has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for injunction when the disputed property is neither included in the official list of auqaf under Section 5 nor registered under Chapter V, and the claim rests solely on alleged ‘waqf by user’.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Shri C. Aryama Sundaram argued that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is strictly circumscribed by Sections 6 and 7, which empower it to decide disputes only regarding properties specified in the ‘list of auqaf’ published under Section 5(2) or registered under Section 37. He relied on Ramesh Gobindram v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf to contend that Section 83 does not confer independent jurisdiction but merely enables the constitution of Tribunals. He further argued that ‘waqf by user’ requires dedication from time immemorial, as held in Faqir Mohamad Shah v. Qazi Fasihuddin Ansari, and cannot be established for a property used since 2008.
For the Respondent
Shri Niranjan Reddy contended that Section 83 grants the Tribunal expansive jurisdiction over any dispute relating to a waqf or waqf property, including those not yet listed. He relied on Rashid Wali Beg v. Farid Pindari and Anis Fatma Begum v. W.B. Wakf Board, arguing that the 2013 amendment expanded the definition of ‘list of auqaf’ under Section 2(g) to include registered properties, thereby implicitly recognizing ‘waqf by user’ as actionable before the Tribunal. He emphasized that the Act applies to all auqaf, whether created before or after its commencement, under Section 2.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a comprehensive review of conflicting precedents, beginning with Ramesh Gobindram v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf, which held that Section 83 does not confer jurisdiction beyond what is expressly granted under Sections 6, 7, and 85. The Court emphasized that Section 85 bars civil court jurisdiction only in matters ‘required by or under this Act to be determined by a Tribunal’ - a phrase that limits ouster to specific statutory powers.
"Section 83 does not push the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil courts beyond what has been provided for in Section 6(5), Section 7 and Section 85 of the Act. It simply empowers the Government to constitute a Tribunal or Tribunals for determination of any dispute, question or other matter relating to a wakf or wakf property which does not ipso facto mean that the jurisdiction of the civil courts stands completely excluded by reason of such establishment."
The Court rejected the expansive interpretation in Rashid Wali Beg and Anis Fatma Begum, holding that Section 83 is merely a procedural provision for constituting Tribunals and does not create substantive jurisdiction. The 2013 amendment, which added ‘eviction of a tenant’ and ‘rights of lessor and lessee’ to Section 83(1), was held to be clarificatory and not expansive - it merely codified powers already conferred under Section 54.
The Court further held that Section 2(g), as amended, defines ‘list of auqaf’ to include only those published under Section 5(2) or registered under Section 37. A property not on either list cannot be the subject of a Tribunal proceeding, even if claimed as ‘waqf by user’. The Court noted that Section 6(1) and Section 7(1) require the property to be ‘specified as waqf property in the list’ before the Tribunal can adjudicate its status.
The Court concluded that the plaint, which sought an injunction over a property not listed or registered, fell outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The Civil Court’s jurisdiction was not ousted because the dispute did not concern a property already recognized under the Act.
The Verdict
The appellants succeeded. The Supreme Court held that the Wakf Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit for injunction over a property not included in the official list of auqaf or registered under Chapter V of the Wakf Act, 1995. The plaint was rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC, and the orders of the lower courts were set aside. The question of whether the property constitutes a ‘waqf by user’ remains open for adjudication before a Civil Court.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Jurisdiction Requires Formal Recognition
- Practitioners must verify whether a disputed property is listed in the official auqaf register or registered under Section 37 before filing before the Wakf Tribunal.
- Claims based on ‘waqf by user’ or long-standing religious use alone are insufficient to invoke Tribunal jurisdiction unless the property is formally recognized.
- Suits seeking injunctions over unlisted properties must be filed in Civil Courts, not Tribunals.
Order VII Rule 11 Remains a Powerful Tool
- Applications under Order VII, Rule 11 can be successfully invoked where the plaint discloses no cause of action before the Tribunal due to lack of statutory recognition.
- Courts will now routinely examine whether the property is on the official list before allowing Tribunal proceedings to proceed.
- This provides a clear procedural filter to prevent forum shopping and unnecessary litigation before specialized tribunals.
Clarification of Section 83’s Role
- Section 83 is not a jurisdictional grant but a constitutional provision for establishing Tribunals.
- Any dispute not covered under Sections 6, 7, 33, 35, 39, 48, 52, 54, 64, 67, 69, or 73 must be heard by Civil Courts.
- The 2013 amendment did not broaden Tribunal jurisdiction beyond the enumerated powers - it merely clarified existing authority under Section 54.
