Wakf Tribunal vs Civil Courts: Supreme Court Clarifies the Real Limits of Jurisdiction

Introduction

Disputes relating to Wakf properties often raise a recurring and difficult legal question: which forum has jurisdiction — the Civil Court or the Wakf Tribunal? Over the years, conflicting decisions of the Supreme Court itself created uncertainty on the scope of powers of Wakf Tribunals, particularly under Sections 83 and 85 of the Wakf Act, 1995.

Some judgments took an expansive view, holding that all disputes relating to Wakf or Wakf property must go before the Tribunal. Others adopted a narrower interpretation, holding that civil court jurisdiction is ousted only where the Act specifically provides so.

This conflict has now been authoritatively settled by the Supreme Court in a detailed judgment delivered in January 2026. The Court examined the statutory scheme of the Wakf Act, analysed prior precedents, including conflicting coordinate Bench decisions, and clarified the true scope of Wakf Tribunal jurisdiction.

This blog explains the judgment in simple terms, focusing on the reasoning of the Court, the legal principles laid down, and its practical implications for lawyers, litigants, Wakf Boards, and property owners.

Factual Background of the Case

The dispute arose from a residential apartment complex developed on privately owned land. According to the respondent, a portion of the ground floor was enclosed and used as a mosque from around 2008 onwards, with the participation of the original landowner and builder. Members of the public allegedly offered prayers there regularly.

In 2021, access to the alleged mosque was obstructed. The respondent filed a suit seeking permanent injunction, restraining the appellants from interfering with entry and prayers.

The appellants challenged the maintainability of the suit by filing an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, arguing that:

• There was no sanctioned mosque in the building plan
• The property was not notified or registered as Wakf
• The Wakf Tribunal had no jurisdiction unless the property had legal Wakf status under the Act

The trial court rejected the application. The High Court upheld that order, taking the view that the plaint disclosed a “wakf by user”, and hence the Wakf Tribunal had jurisdiction.

Aggrieved, the appellants approached the Supreme Court.

Core Legal Issue Before the Supreme Court

The central question before the Court was:

Does Section 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995 confer a general and all-encompassing jurisdiction on Wakf Tribunals over every dispute relating to Wakf or Wakf property, thereby excluding the jurisdiction of civil courts under Section 85?

Closely connected to this were subsidiary issues:

• Whether a Wakf Tribunal can assume jurisdiction over properties not notified or registered as Wakf
• Whether civil court jurisdiction is completely barred merely because a Wakf-related issue is raised
• Whether earlier decisions expanding Tribunal jurisdiction were correctly decided

Statutory Framework: Sections 6, 7, 83 and 85 of the Wakf Act

Before analysing the Court’s reasoning, it is important to understand the statutory structure.

Section 6 and Section 7

These provisions deal with disputes regarding:

• Whether a property specified in the list of auqaf is Wakf property
• Whether a Wakf is Sunni or Shia

Such disputes must be raised before the Wakf Tribunal within the prescribed limitation.

Section 83

Section 83 provides for constitution of Wakf Tribunals for determination of disputes, questions or other matters relating to Wakf or Wakf property under the Act.

After the 2013 amendment, references to eviction of tenants and determination of lessor–lessee rights were added.

Section 85

Section 85 bars civil court jurisdiction only in respect of matters which are required by or under the Act to be determined by the Tribunal.

The key phrase is:

“which is required by or under this Act to be determined by a Tribunal”

Conflicting Supreme Court Decisions

The Court noted that earlier judgments had taken divergent views.

Narrow Interpretation Line

• Ramesh Gobindram v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf
• Punjab Wakf Board v. Sham Singh Harike
• Haryana Wakf Board v. Mahesh Kumar

These decisions held that:

• Section 83 does not independently confer jurisdiction
• Civil court jurisdiction is barred only where the Act expressly confers power on the Tribunal

Expansive Interpretation Line

• Anis Fatma Begum v. Wakf Board
• Pritpal Singh v. Wakf Board
• P.V. Ibrahim Haji v. Wakf Board

These cases suggested that any dispute relating to Wakf or Wakf property falls within Tribunal jurisdiction.

The Court noted that these divergent views created serious uncertainty.

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Reasoning

Section 83 Is Not a Jurisdiction-Conferring Provision

The Court categorically held that Section 83 does not itself confer jurisdiction. It merely enables the State Government to constitute Tribunals.

Jurisdiction must come from specific provisions elsewhere in the Act, such as Sections 6, 7, 48, 51, 54, 64, etc.

The phrase “under this Act” was emphasised repeatedly. According to the Court, this phrase restricts Tribunal jurisdiction to matters specifically provided for in the Act.

No Absolute Ouster of Civil Court Jurisdiction

The Court reaffirmed the settled principle that ouster of civil court jurisdiction cannot be lightly inferred.

Section 85 bars civil court jurisdiction only for matters which the Act requires the Tribunal to decide. It does not create a blanket exclusion.

If a dispute does not fall within the four corners of Tribunal powers under the Act, civil courts retain jurisdiction.

Wakf Status Is a Jurisdictional Fact

A crucial finding of the Court was that Wakf Tribunal jurisdiction depends on the legal status of the property under the Act.

A property becomes Wakf under the Act only if:

• It is included in the list of auqaf after survey, or
• It is registered under Chapter V

Claims of wakf by user without statutory recognition do not automatically confer Tribunal jurisdiction.

Misreading of Earlier Judgments Corrected

The Court expressly held that decisions expanding Tribunal jurisdiction misread Section 83 by omitting the words “under this Act”.

It also observed that where a coordinate Bench disagrees with an earlier decision, the matter must be referred to a larger Bench — which was not done earlier.

Applying principles from Pranay Sethi, the Court held that the earlier interpretation in Ramesh Gobindram continues to hold the field.

Effect of the 2013 Amendment

The Court clarified that the 2013 amendment:

• Did not expand Tribunal jurisdiction universally
• Merely clarified powers already conferred elsewhere, particularly under Section 54 regarding encroachments

The amendment did not convert Section 83 into a source of omnibus jurisdiction.

Application of Law to the Present Case

Applying these principles, the Court held:

• The property in question was not notified or registered as Wakf
• Tribunal jurisdiction could not be assumed merely on allegations of wakf by user
• The suit for injunction did not fall within matters required to be decided by the Tribunal

Accordingly, the assumption of Tribunal jurisdiction by the courts below was legally unsustainable.

Key Legal Principles Laid Down

1. Section 83 does not independently confer jurisdiction
2. Civil court jurisdiction is not absolutely barred
3. Only disputes expressly provided under the Wakf Act go to the Tribunal
4. Wakf status under the Act is a condition precedent
5. Expansive interpretations contrary to earlier coordinate Bench decisions are not binding

Practical Impact of the Judgment

For Lawyers

• Forum selection must be based on statutory jurisdiction, not labels
• Civil remedies remain available in many Wakf-related disputes

For Wakf Boards

• Statutory registration and notification are critical
• Jurisdiction cannot be assumed without compliance with the Act

For Property Owners

• Allegations of Wakf cannot automatically oust civil court jurisdiction
• Due process under the Act must be followed

Conclusion

This judgment restores clarity, statutory discipline, and balance between civil courts and Wakf Tribunals. It prevents overreach, protects civil remedies, and reinforces that special tribunals are creatures of statute with limited jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that jurisdiction flows from law, not from allegations, and that civil courts remain the default forum unless expressly excluded.

Case Name:
Habib Alladin & Ors. v. Mohammed Ahmed,
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 2937 of 2022,
Supreme Court of India, Judgment dated 28 January 2026.