Allahabad High Court Urges UP Government to Expedite Filling of Waqf Tribunal Vacancy Amid Non-Functional Hearings

Introduction

In a significant directive aimed at ensuring the smooth administration of Waqf properties in Uttar Pradesh, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has requested the state government to promptly fill a vacancy in the Waqf Tribunal. The court observed that the absence of a full complement of members has rendered the tribunal non-functional, leading to no effective hearings in ongoing disputes. This order was passed on January 19, 2026, by a division bench comprising Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Manjive Shukla while disposing of a writ petition filed by Faisal Khan against the U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board and two others. The case stemmed from a dispute over the recall of Khan's appointment as Mutawalli (administrator) of a Waqf property, highlighting broader systemic issues in the adjudication of Waqf matters under the Waqf Act, 1995. While the bench declined to entertain the petition on merits due to procedural irregularities, it used the opportunity to underscore the urgent need for tribunal functionality, directing the court's Senior Registrar to communicate the order to the state government for compliance.

This development is particularly timely as it addresses delays in Waqf dispute resolution, which often involve sensitive religious and property rights. For legal professionals handling Waqf litigation, the ruling reinforces the interplay between statutory amendments and high court oversight, potentially influencing how appeals are routed when specialized tribunals falter.

Case Background

The roots of this case trace back to a dispute over the management of a Waqf property, where the petitioner, Faisal Khan, was initially appointed as the Mutawalli but later faced the recall of that appointment through an order dated October 1, 2024. As the custodian of Waqf assets, a Mutawalli plays a crucial role in overseeing endowments dedicated for religious or charitable purposes under Islamic law, as codified in the Waqf Act, 1995. Dissatisfied with the recall, Khan sought judicial intervention.

In July 2025, Khan first approached the Allahabad High Court via a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging the recall order. He argued that he had already initiated proceedings before the Waqf Tribunal under Section 83 of the Waqf Act, 1995, but was compelled to seek high court relief because the tribunal was not constituted and remained non-functional due to vacancies. A single judge bench, after hearing arguments, dismissed the petition, citing a statutory bar under the amended Section 83. This amendment, introduced to streamline appeals in Waqf matters, allows aggrieved parties to approach the high court directly if the tribunal is absent or not functioning. The single judge granted Khan liberty to file an appeal in accordance with law, emphasizing that Article 227 jurisdiction could not be invoked as a substitute for the appellate process.

Undeterred, Khan filed a second writ petition (Writ-C No. 12297 of 2025) before the division bench, essentially seeking to revisit the single judge's order without pursuing the advised appeal route. The respondents, including the U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board— the apex body responsible for administering Sunni Waqf properties in the state—opposed the petition, reiterating the procedural lapses. The board, through its Chief Executive in Lucknow, highlighted the amendment's provisions and argued against entertaining a successive writ.

This procedural ping-pong brought to light a larger issue: the persistent vacancy in the Waqf Tribunal for Uttar Pradesh. Established under the Waqf Act to adjudicate disputes related to Waqf properties, registrations, audits, and appointments, the tribunal's non-operation has created a bottleneck. Waqf properties in India, estimated to span over 8 lakh acres and valued in billions, are vital for community welfare, yet disputes often languish without specialized forums. The timeline—from the initial recall in October 2024 to the division bench hearing in January 2026—illustrates how such vacancies exacerbate delays, forcing litigants into higher courts and straining judicial resources.

The core legal questions revolved around: (1) whether a second writ petition could circumvent the single judge's directions to appeal under the amended Section 83; (2) the applicability of Article 227 in light of statutory alternatives; and (3) the high court's role in addressing administrative lapses in tribunal composition.

Arguments Presented

The petitioner's counsel, Faisal Ahmad Khan, contended that the non-functioning of the Waqf Tribunal justified direct recourse to the high court under Article 227, portraying it as a supervisory jurisdiction to correct grave injustices. He emphasized that despite approaching the tribunal under Section 83, the lack of hearings left his grievances unaddressed, particularly regarding the arbitrary recall of his Mutawalli appointment. Khan argued that the amendment to Section 83, while providing for direct appeals to the high court in cases of tribunal dysfunction, did not explicitly bar Article 227 petitions, and the single judge's dismissal overlooked this nuance. Furthermore, he highlighted the practical hardship: without a functional tribunal, Waqf disputes risked indefinite pendency, undermining the Act's objective of expeditious resolution.

On the respondents' side, counsel Mohammed Hamza Shamim, representing the U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board, firmly opposed the second writ. They drew attention to the single judge's July 29, 2025, order, which had already delineated the amended Section 83's mandate: "in case, there is no Tribunal or the Tribunal is not functioning, the person aggrieved may appeal with the High Court directly." Shamim argued that filing a successive writ petition amounted to forum shopping and bypassed the statutory appeal mechanism, rendering the petition an abuse of process. The board stressed that the recall of Khan's appointment as Mutawalli was based on procedural irregularities in the initial selection, and any challenge should follow the prescribed appellate route rather than invoking high court writ jurisdiction prematurely.

Both sides touched on the tribunal vacancy indirectly through the petitioner's submissions, but the respondents did not contest its existence, implicitly acknowledging the administrative challenge. Key factual points included the timeline of Khan's appointment and recall, the board's oversight role under the Waqf Act, and the state's responsibility for constituting the tribunal as per Section 83(1), which requires a presiding officer and at least two members, typically including a judicial expert and a Waqf administration specialist.

These arguments underscored a tension between procedural rigidity and substantive justice, with the petitioner seeking immediate relief and the respondents advocating adherence to legislative intent.

Legal Analysis

The division bench's reasoning was firmly rooted in procedural propriety and statutory interpretation, particularly the 2013 amendment to Section 83 of the Waqf Act, 1995. This amendment was introduced via the Waqf (Amendment) Act to address inefficiencies in Waqf adjudication by empowering high courts as appellate authorities when tribunals are inoperative, thereby preventing a vacuum in justice delivery. The court noted that the single judge's order correctly applied this provision, creating a bar against parallel Article 227 proceedings, which are meant for supervisory oversight rather than original appeals.

No specific precedents were cited in the judgment, as the matter was disposed of on jurisdictional grounds without delving into merits. However, the ruling implicitly aligns with established principles from cases like Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai (2003), where the Supreme Court clarified Article 227's limited scope as a corrective mechanism, not a substitute for statutory appeals. Similarly, the emphasis on expeditious tribunal appointments echoes broader judicial directives in administrative law, such as in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997), which affirmed the need for functional tribunals to uphold constitutional mandates under Articles 323A and 323B.

The court distinguished between the tribunal's original jurisdiction under Section 83 for Waqf-specific disputes—like Mutawalli appointments—and the high court's appellate role post-amendment. It clarified that while vacancies hinder effective hearings, this does not entitle petitioners to ignore statutory remedies; instead, it triggers direct appeals to the high court. On the vacancy issue, the bench exercised its inherent powers under Article 226 to issue administrative directions, recognizing the state's duty under Section 83(1) to constitute tribunals "as soon as may be." This intervention highlights the judiciary's role in prodding executive inaction without overstepping into policy-making.

Legally, the ruling reinforces the hierarchy: tribunal first (if functional), then high court appeal. It also spotlights the amendment's dual purpose—bypassing delays while preserving tribunal primacy. For Waqf law practitioners, this means increased high court filings in UP until vacancies are filled, potentially overwhelming benches already handling diverse civil matters.

Key Observations

The judgment extracts several pivotal observations that encapsulate the court's concerns:

1. On the procedural bar: "In view of the bar, I am not inclined to entertain the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to prefer an appeal, if so advised, in accordance with law." (From the single judge order quoted in the division bench judgment, emphasizing the amended Section 83's precedence.)

2. Regarding the second writ: "Upon a perusal of the above order, it is clear that the petitioner had been granted liberty to prefer an appeal before the High Court. However, it appears that a second writ petition has been filed. We are not inclined to entertain this writ petition..." (Highlighting the impropriety of bypassing directed remedies.)

3. On the tribunal's dysfunction: "We are also given to understand that there is a vacancy with regard to the Waqf Tribunal in the State of Uttar Pradesh and due to the same, no effective hearing is taking place before the Tribunal." (Directly addressing the systemic failure impacting Waqf justice.)

4. The request for action: "In light of the same, we request the State Government to look into the said issue and make an appointment to the Waqf Tribunal expeditiously, in accordance with law." (Underscoring the court's nudge toward administrative efficiency.)

5. Compliance mechanism: "Senior Registrar is directed to communicate the above to the State Government." (Ensuring the directive's enforceability.)

These quotes, drawn verbatim from the judgment dated January 19, 2026 (2026:AHC-LKO:3750-DB), illustrate the bench's balanced approach—upholding procedure while advocating for institutional reforms.

Court's Decision

The division bench disposed of the writ petition (Faisal Khan vs. U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board Thru. Chief Executive Lko. And 2 Others, 2026) without examining its merits, granting the petitioner liberty to pursue an appeal as per the single judge's July 29, 2025, order. This upholds the statutory framework under the amended Section 83, directing Khan to file a direct appeal to the high court if aggrieved by the Mutawalli recall.

More broadly, the court issued a firm yet polite request to the Uttar Pradesh government to address the Waqf Tribunal vacancy and make appointments "expeditiously, in accordance with law." To monitor compliance, the Senior Registrar was instructed to forward the order to the state authorities. No timelines were imposed, but the language implies urgency, given the observation of stalled hearings.

The practical effects are multifaceted. For the petitioner, it closes the door on writ relief but opens the appellate path, potentially resolving his Mutawalli dispute faster via high court appeal. For Waqf administration in UP, the ruling serves as a wake-up call: persistent vacancies not only delay individual cases but erode trust in the Waqf Act's machinery. With over 2 lakh registered Waqfs in UP alone—encompassing mosques, schools, and orphanages—the tribunal's revival could unclog hundreds of pending matters, from property encroachments to audit disputes.

In future cases, this decision may embolden high courts to issue similar administrative directives when statutory bodies falter, influencing Waqf litigation nationwide. It could prompt the UP government to prioritize judicial appointments, perhaps leading to legislative or policy tweaks for tribunal sustainability. For legal professionals, it signals a need to pivot strategies toward direct high court appeals in non-functional tribunal scenarios, while monitoring state compliance. Ultimately, the ruling advances the Waqf Act's goal of efficient dispute resolution, safeguarding endowments for public good amid administrative hurdles.