Waqf Tribunal Cannot Usurp Board's Supervisory Powers: Gujarat HC

The Gujarat High Court has re-established the boundary between adjudicatory and supervisory authorities under the Wakf Act, 1995, ruling that a Tribunal cannot assume the regulatory functions specifically reserved for the Waqf Board regardless of how well-intentioned its directions may be.

A single-judge bench of Justice Mool Chand Tyagi set aside several sweeping directions issued by the Gandhinagar Waqf Tribunal, which had ordered the seizure of accounts, appointment of an administrator, and the filing of criminal cases against a Mutawalli. The High Court emphasized that while the Tribunal has wide powers to settle disputes, it is a creature of the statute and cannot exercise general superintendence over the administration of Waqfs.

Key Takeaways

Jurisdictional Boundaries Reinforced

The Court clarified that the Tribunal is strictly an adjudicatory body and cannot perform the supervisory or administrative roles assigned to the Waqf Board under the Act.

Remedy for Board's Inaction

Failure of the Waqf Board to discharge its duties does not automatically grant the Tribunal the right to assume those powers; such lapses must be addressed within the statutory framework, not by judicial overreach.

Protection of Statutory Scheme

The ruling ensures that the distinct roles of regulatory oversight (Board) and dispute resolution (Tribunal) remain separate, preventing procedural chaos in the management of Waqf properties.

Tribunal's Overreach into Supervisory Domain

The Court noted that the Tribunal had gone beyond its mandate by issuing directions to take possession of books of accounts and records, and further directing the initiation of criminal proceedings. The bench observed that these functions are explicitly vested in the Waqf Board under Sections 32 and 70 of the Wakf Act, 1995.

The Court has the following directions:

"The matter is remanded to the Gujarat State Waqf Board, Gandhinagar with a direction to undertake and complete the requisite proceedings in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The learned Waqf Board shall conduct an inquiry into the complaints received by it strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Wakf Act, 1995 and the Rules framed thereunder, after affording due opportunity to all concerned persons. The Waqf Board shall thereafter take such consequential and appropriate action, as may be permissible under the Act including such steps as are necessary for the proper administration, management and protection of the Waqf, its properties and accounts."

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The jurisdiction vested in the learned Tribunal is essentially adjudicatory in nature. It is not a supervisory authority over the Waqf Board nor has the Act conferred upon it any general power of superintendence over the functioning of the Waqf Board or its statutory authorities. The supervisory and administrative powers contemplated under the Act are vested in the Waqf Board... consequently, however well-intentioned a direction may be, the same cannot be sustained merely on the ground that it is intended to secure proper administration of the Waqf, if such direction travels beyond the statutory jurisdiction."

Ratio

The Waqf Tribunal is an adjudicatory forum and not a supervisory authority. Where a statute creates different authorities to exercise respective functions, each must operate within its defined corners; the Tribunal cannot usurp the administrative and regulatory powers specifically entrusted to the Waqf Board by the Legislature under Sections 32, 67, and 70 of the Wakf Act, 1995.

Background

The dispute originated from the B-100/Junagadh Suryawad Memon Jamat, Porbandar. The appellant, Mohammad Yusuf Mohammad Punjani, was appointed as Mutawalli in 2023. Based on complaints of mismanagement, the Chief Executive Officer of the Waqf Board appointed election officers to oversee the trust's administration. The appellant challenged this before the Waqf Tribunal, arguing the order was passed without a hearing.

While the Tribunal correctly quashed the CEO's order for violating natural justice and Section 71 of the Wakf Act, 1995, it simultaneously issued a series of directions for the Board to lodge FIRs against the appellant and take over the trust's assets. The High Court, relying on precedents such as M.P. Wakf Board v. Subhan Shah (Dead) by L.Rs. & Ors. and S.V. Cheriyakoya Thangal v. S.V.P. Pookoya & Ors., held that the Tribunal could not "frame a scheme" or assume powers of superintendence. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal to the extent of setting aside the intrusive directions and remanded the matter to the Board for a fresh, lawful inquiry.

Case Details:
Case No.: R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3494 of 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:GUJHC:64358
Case Title: Mohammad Yusuf Mohammad Punjani Versus Gujarat State Waqf Board & Ors.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr R R Marshal, Senior Advocate With Ms Chintanika P Lukhi, Shrey H Dave, Jay P Patel
For the Respondent(s): Mr Manish S Shah, Rizwan Shaikh

Source: 2026 CaseBase(GUJ) 29383