Beyond The Shrine: Madras High Court Curbs Waqf Board’s Automatic Jurisdiction

In a ruling that clarifies the limits of administrative oversight over religious institutions, the Madras High Court has held that the mere presence of a Dargah on a plot of land does not automatically vest control of that property in the Waqf Board. Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi emphasized that the Board must strictly adhere to statutory protocols, specifically mandatory surveys and notifications, before it can exercise authority over an institution or its land.

A Dispute Over Custodianship The case— C.M.A.No.2062 of 2025 —centered on the Sarkar Syed Habibullah Sha Khadari Arif Rabbani Hazarath Dargah in Triplicane, Chennai. The appellant, claiming to represent the hereditary lineage of the Dargah’s caretakers for over four decades, challenged a Waqf Board resolution that appointed a new Mutawalli and moved to register the shrine under the Waqf Act.

The appellant argued that the land did not belong to the Waqf, but rather to the Public Works Department (PWD). Conversely, the Waqf Board contended that the site’s religious usage inherently brought it under their supervisory jurisdiction. The PWD further muddied the waters, asserting the land was government poromboke (common land) currently leased to the Bharat Scouts and Guides, and that the registration attempt by the new claimant was fraudulent and lacked departmental concurrence.

The Missing Statutory Link: Why Jurisdiction Matters The core legal question before the Court was whether the Waqf Board can bypass the statutory survey process if a shrine is visibly religious. Justice Thilakavadi’s judgment delivered a firm "no."

Citing the Waqf Act, 1995, the Court observed that a Dargah’s existence is not proof of its status as a formal Waqf. For a property to be legally classified as such, it requires clear evidence of permanent dedication by a Muslim owner for pious, religious, or charitable purposes recognized by Islamic law.

Key Observations from the Bench The Court’s reasoning hinged on the necessity of due process. Some pivotal observations from the judgment include:

  • "Conducting of the surveys before declaring a property a Waqf property is a sine qua non ."
  • "Mere existence of a Dargah does not automatically confer jurisdiction upon the Board unless the institution is established or treated as a Waqf in accordance with law."
  • "If a Dargah has never been surveyed, registered or notified as Waqf , the Waqf Board ordinarily cannot assume automatic control merely because it is a Muslim Religious Institution ."
  • "Every grave or Dargah is not automatically Waqf property."

Precedents and Principles The High Court drew upon foundational jurisprudence, including the Supreme Court’s ruling in The Durgah Committee, Ajmer & Anr. V. Syed Hussain Ali & Ors. and Salem Muslim Burial Ground Protection Committee V. State of Tamil Nadu . These precedents underscore that the Waqf Board cannot act in a vacuum. It must prove the property was legally dedicated and properly surveyed under the prevailing Waqf Acts before attempting to appoint management or claim ownership.

The Verdict and Its Impact Setting aside the Tamil Nadu Waqf Tribunal’s order, the High Court held that the appointment of a Mutawalli presupposes a confirmed Waqf status—a status that had not been legally established in this case. The Court directed that since both parties were asserting competing claims over a disputed parcel of land, the issue must be resolved by a competent Civil Court, as the Waqf Board’s procedural shortcuts had rendered their administrative orders unsustainable.

This judgment serves as a vital reminder for administrative bodies: the authority granted by statutes carries with it the duty to follow the text of the law. For the Waqf Board, this means that before the gavel falls on the management of a shrine, the registry must show a completed survey and lawful notification. Merely observing a religious practice on a site is not enough to grant the Board the keys to the kingdom.