Waqf Tribunal’s Jurisdiction Confined to Properties in ‘List Of Auqaf’; Plaint For Simple Injunction Rejected

A bench of Justices K. Vinod Chandran and Sanjay Kumar heard an appeal testing the reach of the Tribunal constituted under the Waqf Act, 1995, namely whether the Tribunal could entertain a suit for a perpetual injunction in respect of premises alleged to be a mosque in a residential apartment complex when the property was not shown in the statutory list or register.

The Court allowed the appeal and held that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction was confined to matters specified under the Act and, insofar as questions whether a property was a waqf or not, to properties entered in the ‘list of Auqaf’ (including those registered under Section 37 after the 2013 amendment). The Court emphasised that Section 83 did not itself confer an omnibus jurisdiction beyond what the statute specifically provided and that the 2013 amendment clarified limited additional powers (notably removal of encroachers under Section 54) without obliterating the statutory scheme. The Court stated plainly that “the injunction simpliciter sought for before the Tribunal does not fall within its jurisdiction and the plaint has to be rejected,” and rejected the writs of coordinate benches that had read Section 83 expansively. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “We are of the opinion that the principle laid down that, the Tribunal is only clothed with the powers under Sections 6 and 7, to resolve disputes and questions arising with respect to whether a property is wakf property or not; survives the amendment, as confined to those properties included in the ‘list of auqaf’, defined in Section 2(g). The definition clause by the amendment of 2013 was expanded to bring within it, those properties registered by the Board and entered in the register maintained under Section 37, in addition to properties entered in the list under Section 5(2). Only such disputes or questions as to the status of such properties in the ‘list of auqaf’ can be agitated before the Tribunal, especially since finality is conferred and conclusiveness provided, only to the decision of the Tribunal [Section 6(1)].”

Background The dispute arose from a suit filed in the Waqf Tribunal by the respondent, who alleged that a portion of the ground floor of an apartment building — constructed by a builder under a development agreement with the 1st appellant owner — had been enclosed and used as a mosque since 2008 and that public prayers were being obstructed from 2021. The respondent sought a perpetual injunction restraining the appellants from preventing access to the prayer area. The appellants moved for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that the scheduled premises was not shown as a mosque in sanctioned plans, was not included in the statutory list of auqaf or registered under the Waqf Act, and therefore the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain a plain injunction claim.

The Tribunal and thereafter the High Court declined to reject the plaint, the High Court finding that the pleadings disclosed a “waqf by user” and that the Tribunal had jurisdiction. The appellants obtained special leave and this Court heard rival submissions. Senior counsel for appellants urged that Sections 6 and 7 and the definition of ‘list of Auqaf’ confined Tribunal jurisdiction to properties specified in the list/register; senior counsel for respondent relied on Section 83 and post‑2013 amendments and a line of decisions reading Section 83 broadly.

On consideration of precedent — notably Ramesh Gobindram v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf and later decisions including Rashid Wali Beg — the Court examined whether coordinate benches had exceeded the statutory scheme. It held that the 2013 amendment was clarificatory to include registered properties in the ‘list of Auqaf’ and to empower the Tribunal in specific respects (for example, removal of encroachers under Section 54), but did not convert Section 83 into a provision ousting civil courts or enlarging Tribunal jurisdiction to all disputes in respect of properties not recorded in the statutory list/register. Applying these principles to the plaint, the Court found the suit to be outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and allowed the appellants’ Order VII Rule 11 application.

The Court allowed the civil appeal, set aside the Tribunal and High Court orders, rejected the suit before the Tribunal, and left open the question whether the scheduled property was a waqf to be agitated “in accordance with law.” No interim directions were issued beyond disposal of the proceedings; pending applications were disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: 2026 INSC 90 (Civil Appeal No. @ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 2937 of 2022) Case Title: Habib Alladin & Ors. …Appellants v. Mohammed Ahmed …Respondent Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): C. Aryama Sundaram, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Niranjan Reddy, Senior Counsel