Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KUMAR, K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ.
Habib Alladin & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Mohammed Ahmed – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. of 2026 (@Special Leave Petition (C) No. 2937 of 2022)
Decided On : 28-01-2026
(A) Wakf Act, 1995 – Sections 6 and 7 read with Sections 83 and 85 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VII, Rule 11 – Jurisdiction of Wakf Tribunal – Reach and sweep – Suit seeking perpetual injunction – Property is not one specified in ‘list of auqaf’, which is mandatory requirement under Section 6(1) and Section 7(1) of Waqf Act of 1995 to approach Tribunal – Section 83 does not confer any jurisdiction on Tribunal, either/or an omnibus consideration of any dispute, question or other matter related to waqf or of waqf property, nor with respect to eviction of a tenant or determination of rights and obligations of lessor and lessee of waqf property – It merely enables constitution of Tribunal – Injunction simpliciter sought for before Tribunal does not fall within its jurisdiction and plaint has to be rejected, allowing application of defendant under Order VII, Rule 11 – Order of Tribunal, ascertaining jurisdiction and that of High Court, affirming it, set aside – Suit filed before Tribunal rejected, leaving question of whether scheduled property is a Waqf or not open to be agitated in accordance with law. (Paras 47, 50 and 51)
(B) Statute Law – An Amendment will be retrospective only if expressly provided for and at times, when it follows by necessary implication – A vested right can be taken away by a subsequent enactment which by express words or necessary intendment makes it retrospective – An amendment by way of substitution does not invariably result in a retrospective application – Retrospectivity is not to be presumed and presumption is to the contrary – It is open for Legislature to enact laws having retrospective operation, by express enactment or by necessary implication from language employed. (Paras 31 and 33)
Facts of the case:
The neat question arising in this appeal as to the reach and sweep of the jurisdiction of Tribunal constituted under Wakf Act, 1995, though short, has been rendered complex by divergent opinions expressed by coordinate benches of this Court.
Findings of Court:
The amendment Act of 2013 removes the sub-stratum of decision in Ramesh Gobindram only to the extent of absence found, of jurisdiction conferred on Tribunal to remove encroachers and does not, in any other manner, interfere with the principle stated of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under the Act of 1995 and jurisdiction of Civil Court having been ousted only to the extent of the specific power conferred on the Tribunal by and under the Act.
Result : Appeal allowed.
The key point from the provided legal document is that the jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal is limited to specific matters concerning waqf properties as defined under the relevant legislation. Specifically, a simple injunction related to a property that is not listed as a waqf property or registered in the official records cannot be entertained by the Tribunal. Such a matter must be brought before a civil court. The document emphasizes that the Tribunal's authority is confined to disputes explicitly enumerated in the statute, such as questions regarding whether a property is a waqf or not, or related to waqf management, but not for general injunctions or disputes outside its statutory scope (!) (!) .
Additionally, amendments to the legislation are generally deemed to have prospective effect unless explicitly stated or implied to be retrospective. Changes that clarify or expand the scope of the Tribunal's jurisdiction are considered procedural and thus applicable from the time of enactment, not retroactively (!) (!) .
In summary, the legal principle established is that the scope of the Tribunal's jurisdiction is strictly defined by the statute, and matters such as injunctions on properties not recognized as waqf or not included in the official list or register are outside its authority. Such disputes should be addressed in civil courts, and any attempt to bring them before the Tribunal is liable to be rejected (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
Leave granted.
2. The neat question arising in the above appeal as to the reach and sweep of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal constituted under the Wakf Act, 19951 [for short, ‘Act of 1995’], though short, has been rendered complex by divergent opinions expressed by coordinate benches of this Court.
3. On facts, for the present suffice it to notice that the 1st appellant herein was the owner of a land which was developed by constructing an apartment complex through a builder on the strength of a development agreement. The respondent herein contended that on the ground floor of the building, meant for residential purpose, an area was enclosed as a Mosque with the active participation of the owner, constructed by the builder. The respondent claimed that himself and other members of the public have been offering prayers in the premises, more fully described in the schedule to the plaint, which is now being obstructed by the petitioners. The cause of action according to the respondent arose when the ingress to the Mosque, established in the year 2008, was obstructed in the year 2021. The plaintiff sought for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from causing any interference or hindrance to the plaintiff and other Musallies from entering into the premises and offering prayers.
4. The appellants filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19082 [for short, ‘the CPC’] specifically contending that there is no such Mosque established or continued in the residential complex. There is no demarcation of such a Mosque in the sanctioned plan and in any event, it is not a waqf under the Act of 1995; inclusion in the list notified or registration by the Waqf Board under that Act being mandatory for the plaintiff to approach the Tribunal. The confined jurisdiction conferred on the Tribunal, by the Act of 1995, does not enable the prayer for an injunction with respect to the property which has not been conferred with the status of a wakf under that Act. An Order VII Rule11 application having been rejected, the defendants were before the High Court, which revision was dismissed by the impugned order. The High Court found that the averments in the plaint indicate a ‘waqf by user’ covered under the definition of waqf in Section 3(r)(i) of the Act of 1995. The defendants are hence before this Court canvassing their prayer for rejection of plaint.
5. Shri C. Aryama Sundaram learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the prayer for injunction simpliciter before the Tribunal is impermissible in view of the fact that the scheduled premises has not been established to be a Mosque or even a waqf. A declaration to that status of a property, not included in the list notified under Chapter II or registered under Chapter V of the Act of 1995 cannot be agitated before the Tribunal constituted under that Act. Section 6 and 7 of the Act of 1995 confers jurisdiction on the Tribunal specifically with respect to a question arising as to whether a particular property is a waqf property or not or to be determined by the Tribunal, if and only if such property is specified as a waqf property in a ‘list of Auqaf’ under Section 5. The same having not been done, there is no question of even a declaration being sought before the Tribunal, which prayer has to be necessarily made before the Civil Court, without which there cannot be a relief prayed for injunction simpliciter.
6. Reliance is placed on Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal3, (2017) 13 SCC 174 wherein, a dispute regarding non- inclusion of certain property in the ‘list of auqaf’ notified long back in the official gazette was found by the Tribunal to be a manifestly vexatious and meritless suit in the sense of it disclosing no right to sue; rejected under Order VII Rule 11. Insofar as the claim of ‘waqf by user’, reliance was placed on Faqir Mohamad Shah v. Qazi Fasihuddin Ansari4, AIR 1956 SC 713 in which it was
(1) Jurisdiction of Wakf Tribunal – Injunction simpliciter sought for before Tribunal does not fall within its jurisdiction and plaint has to be rejected.(2) An Amendment will be retrospective only ....
(1) Suit for permanent injunction in respect of Waqf property is maintainable before Waqf Tribunal.(2) Waqf Tribunal shall be deemed to be a Civil Court and shall have same powers as may be exercised....
The Waqf Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes involving Waqf properties, including tenant eviction, as per the amended Waqf Act, overriding state tenancy laws.
The main legal principle established is that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, Revenue Court, and other authorities in respect of any dispute relating to a waqf property is barred by Section 85 of....
Jurisdiction over disputes related to Waqf properties lies exclusively with Waqf Tribunals, barring civil court intervention, as reinforced by the WAQF ACT, 1995 and Supreme Court precedents.
Wakf properties – Jurisidction of wakf tribunal - merely because the present petitioner as defendant No.1 appears to have participated in the proceedings and contested the suit before the Tribunal, b....
Wakf Property – Eviction of tenant - under Section 83(1), the Tribunal had no power to entertain a suit of eviction.
Point of Law : Due process need not mean only an active process initiated by the owner of the property.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
