1. Appeal against the dismissal of a petition challenging an election being conducted to a committee claiming to be a Mutawalli of a waqf. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 68005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Devan Ramachandran, Basant Balaji, JJ
Muhasin P. V – Appellant
Versus
Balussery Mahallu Muslim Jama Ath – Respondent
MFA (WAQF) No. 31 of 2026|MFA (WAQF) No. 32 of 2026
Important Points
The Waqf Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over election disputes of a committee claiming to be the Mutawalli, as such disputes do not fall under the 1995 Act unless they specifically pertain to the appointment of a Mutawalli under Section 63.
Subject
Civil Law - Waqf Law
Act Referred
Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995: S.6, S.7, S.32, S.63, S.83, S.94
Headnote
(A) Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995 - Sections 6, 7, 32, 63, 83, and 94 - Election dispute - Jurisdiction of Waqf Tribunal - Whether a dispute regarding an election to a committee claiming to be the Mutawalli falls within the purview of the Act - Jurisdiction of the Tribunal is restricted to disputes regarding waqf property, the nature of the waqf, or the determination of who should be the Mutawalli in case of a vacancy under Section 63 - When an election is conducted for a society or committee, such a dispute is not amenable to the Waqf Tribunal and should be adjudicated by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. (Paras 4, 5)
Facts of the case:
The appellants challenged the judgments of the Waqf Tribunal, Kozhikode, in O.S. No. 63 of 2022 and O.S. No. 29 of 2023. The disputes pertained to elections conducted for the Balussery Mahallu Muslim Jama Ath. The primary contention was whether the Waqf Tribunal had the jurisdiction to adjudicate election disputes of a committee that claims to function as the Mutawalli.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the election in question was to a committee, and not specifically the appointment of a Mutawalli under the statutory process provided in the Act. Following the precedent of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the court held that such election disputes are pushed beyond the ambit of the 1995 Act.
Issues: Whether an election dispute concerning a committee claiming to be the Mutawalli is subject to the jurisdiction of the Waqf Tribunal under the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995.
Ratio Decidendi: The jurisdiction of the Waqf Tribunal can be invoked only if the dispute involves the determination of who should be the Mutawalli under Section 63 of the Act. Disputes relating to elections of a society or committee do not constitute a "dispute regarding a waqf" as defined under Section 6 and are therefore not amenable to the Tribunal.
Result: MFA is dismissed.
Facts of the case:
The appellants challenged the judgments of the Waqf Tribunal, Kozhikode, in O.S. No. 63 of 2022 and O.S. No. 29 of 2023. The disputes pertained to elections conducted for the Balussery Mahallu Muslim Jama Ath. The primary contention was whether the Waqf Tribunal had the jurisdiction to adjudicate election disputes of a committee that claims to function as the Mutawalli.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the election in question was to a committee, and not specifically the appointment of a Mutawalli under the statutory process provided in the Act. Following the precedent of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the court held that such election disputes are pushed beyond the ambit of the 1995 Act.
Issues: Whether an election dispute concerning a committee claiming to be the Mutawalli is subject to the jurisdiction of the Waqf Tribunal under the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995.
Ratio Decidendi: The jurisdiction of the Waqf Tribunal can be invoked only if the dispute involves the determination of who should be the Mutawalli under Section 63 of the Act. Disputes relating to elections of a society or committee do not constitute a "dispute regarding a waqf" as defined under Section 6 and are therefore not amenable to the Tribunal.
Result: MFA is dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Manas P Hameed, Ipsita Ojal
For the Respondents: P.A. Abdul Jabbar, Muhammed Shaffi, Shibili Naha
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Manas P Hameed, Ipsita Ojal
For the Respondents: P.A. Abdul Jabbar, Muhammed Shaffi, Shibili Naha
Table of Contents
2. Appellants argued election disputes are excluded from the Waqf Act, while the Waqf Board argued the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over society elections. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over election disputes for societies, which remain under the purview of civil courts unless specifically concerning Mutawalli appointment vacancies under the Act. (Para 4 , 5 )
4. Waqf Tribunal jurisdiction is limited to specific matters under the Act, such as appointing a Mutawalli, and does not extend to general election disputes of a committee. (Para 5 )
5. The Miscellaneous First Appeal filed by the appellants is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (Para 5 )
6. Does the Waqf Tribunal have jurisdiction to adjudicate election disputes involving a society acting as a Mutawalli?
No, the Waqf Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over election disputes unrelated to the statutory appointment of a permanent Mutawalli under Section 63 of the Act. (Para 4 , 5 )
7. What is the scope of the Waqf Tribunal’s jurisdiction under the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995?
The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is confined to matters specifically identified in the Act, such as determining disputes regarding a waqf, property nature, or the specific appointment of a Mutawalli under Section 63. (Para 4 , 5 )
‘C.R.’
JUDGMENT
Devan Ramachandran, J.
In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mangad Noorul Hidaya Committee v. Hamsa V. [2026 KHC Online 7584], we are certain that the learned Tribunal has acted without error.
2. Nevertheless, Sri.Manas.P.Hameed-appearing for the appellants, argues that the afore precedent applies only in the case where the elections are to be conducted to a society, and not to the Waqf per se; and sought to distinguish the facts involved.
3. Sri.K. Shibili Naha-learned Standing Counsel for the Waqf Board, however, submitted that the declaration of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is specific that it is only in a case where the Waqf Board has to decide who should be the Mutawalli under Section 63 of the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, EfÏciency and Development Act,1995 (for short, ‘Act’) can the the jurisdiction of the Waqf Tribunal be invoked; but that, in this case, the election is to the committee, which claims to be the Mutawalli; thus being pushed beyond the ambit of the ‘Act’.
4. We find the afore argument of the Sri. K. Shibili Naha to be founded very well for the singular reason that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Paragraph Nos.5 to 12 of the afore cited precedent, unambiguously declares the law as under:
“5. The short issue for consideration in this appeal is as to whether an election dispute would become amenable to be adjudicated by the Tribunal constituted under the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, EfÏciency and Development Act, 1995 (for short, the 1995 Act).
6. Placing reliance upon S.6, S.7 and S.83 of the Act, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that any elections scheduled to be conducted would not come within the purview of the 1995 Act.
7. Learned Senior counsel further submits that the issue raised by the respondents is on the eligibility of the voters, totalling to 88. Such an issue can only be adjudicated by the Civil Court having territorial jurisdiction, whose powers are plenary in nature.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents placed reliance on S.94 read with S.32(3) of the 1995 Act, in order to support the impugned judgment passed by the High Court.
9. S.6 of the 1995 Act clearly defines “dispute regarding a waqf”. Such a dispute is with respect to the property belonging to the waqf or the nature of the waqf, either it is Shia or Sunni Waqf.S.7, inter alia deals with the power of the Tribunal to determine disputes regarding a waqf. Under S.83, the State Government shall, by notification, constitute the Tribunal for deciding any dispute, question or other matters related to a waqf or waqf property, including eviction of a tenant or determination of rights and obligations of the lessor and lessee of such property.
10. S.32 of the 1995 Act deals with the powers and functions of the Waqf Board. Such a power has to be exercised in conjunction with S.6 and S.7 of the 1995 Act. Sub-section(3) concerns itself with any scheme of management under Clause (d), or any direction under clause (e) of sub-section (2). S.94 navigates a situation where there exists a failure of mutawalli to discharge his duties.
11. In case at hand, an interim mutawalli has been appointed only for the purpose of conducting the election of the Society. Therefore, neither S.32 nor S.94 of the Act would be applicable, so as to give jurisdiction to the Tribunal constituted under the Act.
12. Though the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that such an application has been filed, pursuant to the direction of the High Court in W.P.(C) No.15502 of 2023, inasmuch as there is an inherent lack of jurisdiction, the said act itself will not facilitate the Waqf Tribunal to decide the lis”.
5. It is, therefore, beyond the pale of any confusion that, when it comes to the election to a committee which claims to be Mutawalli, a proceeding before the Waqf Tribunal will not lie; since, if it is only as to who should be the Mutawalli in the case of a vacancy, can the ju
