2021 INSC 0686
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No. 6336 of  2021
( Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.9733 of 2015)
RASHID WALI BEG      ... APPELLANT(S)
Versus
FARID PINDARI & ORS.            ... RESPONDENT(S)
 
J U D G M E N T
V. Ramasubramanian, J.
1. Aggrieved   by   the   Judgment   of   the   High   Court   of   Judicature   at
Allahabad,   Lucknow   Bench,   holding   that   a   suit   for   a   permanent
injunction before a civil court is not barred by Section 85 of the Waqf
1

Act,   1995   (for   short   “the   Act ”),   the   defendant   has   come   up   with   the
above appeal.
2. We   have   heard   Mr.   Pradeep   Misra,   learned   counsel   for   the
appellant   and   Mr.   Pradeep   Kant,   learned   senior   counsel   for   the   first
respondent.
3. The   first   respondent   herein   filed   a   suit   in   R.S.   No.137   of   2011
against   the   appellant   herein   as   defendant   No.   1   and   impleading   the
respondents   2   to   5   herein   as   defendants   2   to   5.   The   suit   was   for   a
mandatory   injunction   directing   the   defendants   to   remove   the
encroachment   made   by   them   and   for   a   permanent   injunction
restraining   the   defendants   from   interfering   with   the   plaintiff’s
possession of a piece of land situated at Mirzaganj, Pargana and Tehsil
Malihabad,   Lucknow.   The   suit   was   filed   in   the   Court   of   Civil   Judge,
Senior   Division,   Malihabad.   The   case   of   the   first   respondent
herein /plaintiff   was   that   the   suit   property   originally   belonged   to   one
Mirza   Abid   Ali   Beg;   that   during   his   life   time   he   created   a   Waqf­al­
Aulad; that during his life time, Mirza Abid Ali Beg was the mutawalli;
that after his life time, his elder daughter became the mutawalli; that
thereafter, the younger daughter Smt. Afzal Jahan Begum became the
2

mutawalli;   that   the   said   Afzal   Jahan   Begum   was   the   grandmother   of
the plaintiff; that the father of the plaintiff led a wayward life, forcing
the grandmother to deliver possession of the property to the plaintiff,
authorizing   him   to   maintain   the   properties   and   utilize   the   income
thereof for the maintenance of the family; that after taking possession,
the   plaintiff   constructed   shops   on   the   land   and   let   them   out   to
tenants;   that   after   sometime,   the   grandmother   of   the   plaintiff
appointed the father of the plaintiff as the mutawalli; that there were
criminal   proceedings   between   the   plaintiff   and   his   father;   that   on
18.12.2010,   the   defendants   brought   building   materials   and   started
digging foundation in the land behind the shops, at the instigation of
the   father   of   the   plaintiff;   that   though   the   plaintiff   gave   a   police
complaint, they  were indifferent, emboldening the defendants to raise
a   boundary   wall   in   a   portion   of   the   land   and   that,   therefore,   the
plaintiff   was   constrained   to   file   a   suit   for   mandatory   and   perpetual
injunction.
4. After   entering   appearance   in   the   suit,   the   appellant   herein   who
was   the   first   defendant,   filed   a   written   statement   admitting   the
existence   of   the   waqf   and   waqf   property.   Thereafter,   he   took   out   an
application under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint, on the
3

simple   ground   that   the   Civil   Court   has   no   jurisdiction   to   try   a   suit
relating   to   what   is   admittedly   a   waqf   property.   The   said   application
was   allowed   by   the   Civil   Judge,   Senior   Division,   Malihabad   and   the
suit was dismissed.
5. Challenging the aforesaid judgment, the first respondent   herein /
plaintiff   filed   a   regular   appeal   under   Section   96   CPC,   but   the   first
Appellate Court dismissed the appeal.
6. However, the second appeal filed by the first respondent­plaintiff
was   allowed   by   the   High   Court   on   the   short   ground   that   since   the
dispute   does   not   involve   either   a   question   as   to   the   nature   of   the
property or the question whether the suit schedule property is a waqf
property or not and also since the suit is only for injunction, the Civil
Court was not barred from entertaining the suit, under  Section 85 of
the Act. It is against the said judgment of the High court that the first
defendant in the suit has come up with the above appeal.
7. Therefore,   the   only   question   that   arises   for   our   consideration   in
this appeal is as to whether a suit for permanent injunction in respect
of a waqf property is maintainable in a civil court or not.
4

8. The   question   of   jurisdiction   of   civil   courts   to   adjudicate   upon
disputes,   for   the   determination   of   which   special   tribunals   are
constituted   under   special   statutes,   has   been   a   vexed   question   which
has   turned,   over   a   period   of   time,   into   a   seesaw   battle.   This   is
especially so particularly in respect of waqfs. But there is a historical
background to this.   
1913 Act
9. The   earliest   enactment   to   come   up,   relating   to   waqfs,   was   the
Mussalman Waqf Validating Act, 1913 (6 of 1913). This Act recognised
the right of muslims to make   settlement of properties by way of waqf
in favour of their families, children and descendents. This Act declared
that no  waqf shall be deemed as invalid merely  because it postponed
the   religious   and   charitable   benefit   confirmed   therein,   until   the
extinction   of   the   family   of   the   founder.   The   reason   why   this   Act   was
legislated, was to overcome the decision of the Privy Council in   Abdul
Jata   Mohammed   Ishak     vs.   Russomoy   Dhur   Choudhary 1
,   which
declared as invalid, a waqf created for the benefit of the family, though
coupled with a gift to charity on the failure of the line of descendents.
1   [1894 (22) Calcutta (PC)]  
5

This Validating Act of 1913 was given retrospective application by Act
32 of 1930.
1923 Act
10. Then   came   the   Mussalman   Waqf   Act   1923,   which   can   be   called
the   precursor   of   Waqf   Legislation,   dealing   with   the   creation,
maintenance   and   administration   of   waqf   and   waqf  property.   This   Act
required   the   mutawalli   of   every   waqf   to   furnish   to   the   Court   within
whose   jurisdiction   the   waqf   property   was   situate,   a   statement   of
particulars.   The   Act   also   mandated   the   mutawalli   of   every   waqf   to
furnish  a full  and true  statement  of  accounts  to  the Court,  after  it  is
audited. The Court was empowered under this Act to hold an inquiry
to ascertain:   (i)   Whether the waqf exists   (ii)   Whether any property is a
waqf property and  (iii)  Who is the mutawalli of the waqf. The 1923 Act
contemplated   the   creation   of   a   Register   of   waqfs   and   the   Court   was
conferred   with   the   power   to   record   entries   in   the   said   Register.   The
1923  Act  contained   a  provision   in   Section   6N,   empowering  the   Court
to authorise any one or more of the members of the waqf committee to
institute   or   defend   any   Suit   or   proceeding   for   the   protection   or
recovery   of   waqf   property   or   for   the   application   of   a   waqf   property   in
6

any   public   charitable   or   religious   purpose.   This   power   of   the   Court
under Section 6N, was notwithstanding anything contained in Section
92 of CPC.
11. Thus  the   1923  Act  specifically  provided a  role  for   the  civil court
in   the   matter   of   recognition   and   registration   of   waqfs,   protection   of
waqf properties and the oversight of the management of the waqfs. In
fact,   the   court   had   enormous   powers   under   the   1923   Act,   including
the power to order a special audit. 
1954 Act
12. After   India   attained   Independence,   the   Parliament   enacted   the
Waqf   Act   1954,   with   the   professed   object   of   providing   for   better
administration   and   supervision   of   waqfs.   The   statements   of   Objects
and   Reasons   of   the   1954   Act,   recorded   that   the   1923   Act   was   not   of
much practical value and that therefore the provincial governments of
Bombay,   Bengal   and   the   United   Provinces   introduced   amendments
respectively in 1934, 1935 and 1936 to the 1923 Act.
13. Sections   6,   27,   36A,   43,   55,   56,   57,   60   and   61   of   the   1954   Act
recognised   the   Civil   Court   as   the   forum   for   the   resolution   of   various
7

disputes relating  to  waqfs  and waqf  properties as  could be seen from
the following :­
(i) Section 6 enabled the Board or mutawalli or any person interested
to institute a suit in a Civil Court of competent Jurisdiction, wherever
any question arose as to  (A)  Whether a particular property specified in
the   list   published   under   Section   5   is   a   waqf   property   or   (B)   Whether
the waqf is a Shia waqf or a Sunni waqf. 
(ii) Though Section 27(1) of the Act, authorised the waqf Board also to
decide the question whether a particular property is a waqf property or
not,   the   decision   of   the   Board   on   the   question,   was   made   subject   to
jurisdiction of the Civil Court as seen from Section 27(2). 
(iii)   Section   36­A   (1)   provided   for   the   remedy   of   a   requisition   by   the
waqf   Board   to   the   Collector,   whenever   any   immovable   property   of   a
waqf was transferred without the previous sanction of the Board. The
Collector   was   empowered   under   this   provision   to   pass   an   order
directing the person in possession of the said property, to deliver it to
the Board. The order so passed by the Collector was appealable to the
District Court under Section 36A (4).
8

(iv)   Section   43(5)   of   the   1954   Act   made   the   order   of   the   Waqf   Board
removing the mutawalli and directing him to deliver possession of the
waqf property, deemed to be a decree of the Civil Court, executable by
the Civil Court, as if it was a decree passed by it. 
(v) Section 55 enabled the Waqf Board to institute a suit to obtain any
of   the   reliefs   mentioned   in   Section   92,   CPC   relating   to   any   waqf,
without obtaining the consent referred to in Section 92, CPC. Section
56 contained a provision similar to Section 80 of CPC and Section 57
laid down the procedure to be followed by the Civil Court, in every suit
or   proceeding   relating   to   title   to   waqf   property   or   the   right   of   a
mutawalli or any sale of waqf property in execution of a decree of Civil
Court. 
(vi) Section 60 imposed a bar on the rights of the parties to a suit, to
enter into a compromise without the sanction of the Board. The Waqf
Board   was   empowered   by   Section   61   to   make   an   application   to   the
Court in case of failure of mutawalli to discharge his duties. 
Waqf  Inquiry Committee and 1984 Amendment Act
14. The   1954   Act,   went   through   some   amendments   in   1959,   1964
and in 1969.   But by  and large, the working  of the   Waqf   Boards was
9

found   to   be   unsatisfactory   and   hence   with   a   view   to   tone   up   the
administration   of   waqfs,   the   Central   Government   constituted   a
committee known as Waqf Inquiry Committee.  The Committee made a
large   number   of   recommendations   and   its   Report,   after   consultation
with   all   stake   holders,   led   to   comprehensive   amendments   to   the   Act,
under   the   Waqf   (Amendment)   Act,   1984.   One   of   the   important
amendments   made   by   this   Amendment   Act,   was   the   substitution   of
the existing Section 55 of the principal Act with a new provision. The
newly substituted Section 55(1) provided for the constitution of special
tribunals   for   the   determination   of   any   dispute,   question   or   other
matter relating to a waqf or waqf property. But the right to invoke the
jurisdiction   of   the   Waqf   Tribunal   was   made   available   under   Section
55(2)   of   the   Act,   only   to,   (i)   any   mutawalli   of   the   waqf;   (ii)   a   person
interested in the waqf; or  (iii)  any other person aggrieved by any order
made   under   the   Act   or   Rule   or   any   order   made   there   under.   Section
55(5)   declared   that   the   Tribunal   shall   be   deemed   to   be   a   civil   court,
having the same powers as may be exercised by a civil court under the
CPC, while trying a suit or executing a decree. However, the Tribunal
was   given   the   freedom   to   follow   its   own   procedure   as   may   be
prescribed,   notwithstanding   anything   contained   in   the   CPC.   Though
10

the decision of the Tribunal was declared to be final under sub section
(7) of Section 55, and though no appeal would lie against a decision of
the Tribunal by virtue of sub­section (9), the High Court was conferred
a power of revision under the proviso to sub­section (9) of Section 55.
15. Section 55C barred the jurisdiction of civil court in respect of any
dispute,   question  or   other   matter   relating  to   any   waqf,   waqf   property
or other matter which is required by or under the Act to be determined
by   a   Tribunal.   But   at   the   same   time,   Section   55D   contained   a
provision  enabling   the   court  to  appoint a  Receiver  under  certain
circumstances. Section 55D reads as follows:­
“55D.   Notwithstanding   anything   contained   in   the   Code   of   Civil
Procedure,   1908,   or   in   any   other   law   for   the   time   being   in   force,
where   any   suit   or   other   legal   proceeding   is   instituted   or
commenced­
(a) by or on behalf of a Board –
(i) to   set   aside   the   sale   of   any   immovable
property,   which   is   waqf   property,   in   execution   of   a
decree or order of a civil court;
(ii) to   set   aside   the   transfer   of   any   immovable
property,   which   is   waqf   property,   made   by   the
mutawalli thereof, whether for valuable consideration
or   note,   without,   or   otherwise   than   in   accordance
with, the sanction of the Board;
(iii) to   recover   possession   of   the   property   referred
to   in   clause(a)   or   clause   (b)   or   to   restore   possession
of   such   property   to   the   mutawalli   of   the   concerned
waqf; or
(b) by   a   mutawalli   to   recover   possession   of   immovable
property,   which   is   waqf   property,   which   has   been
transferred   by   a   previous   mutawalli,   whether   for
valuable   consideration   or   not,   without   or   otherwise
than   in   accordance   with,   the   sanction   of   the   Board
and which is in the possession of the defendants, 
11

the court may, on the application of the plaintiff, appoint a
receiver   of   such   property   and   direct   such   receiver   to   pay
from   time   to   time   to   the   plaintiff,   out   of   the   income   of   the
property,   such   amount   as   the   court   may   consider   to   be
necessary for further prosecution of the suit.
The Waqf Act, 1995
16. But   it   appears   that   the   Amendment   Act   of   1984   came   under
severe criticism and hence only two provisions of the 1984 Act came to
be   enforced   because   of   strong   opposition   from   the   community 2
.
Therefore,   a   comprehensive   bill   on   waqf   matters   incorporating   the
features   of   the   1954   Act   and   such   provisions   of   the   1984   Act   in
respect   of   which   there   was   near   consensus,   was   introduced.   This
became   the   Waqf   Act,   1995.   This   Act   provided   for   the   setting   up   of
waqf   tribunals to consider questions and disputes pertaining to waqfs.
An important feature of the 1995 Act is that it was made applicable to
the   whole   of   India   except   the   State   of   Jammu   and   Kashmir,   though
the Waqf Act, 1954 was not applicable to Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal,
parts of Gujarat, parts of Maharashtra and some of the North Eastern
states 3
.
2  See paragraph 3 of the Statement of Objects and Reasons of 1995 Act
3  See paragraph 6 (h) of the Statement of Objects and Reasons of 1995 Act 
12

16. Sections   83   and   section   85   of   the   Waqf   Act,   1995   (as   they
originally stood before amendment in 2013) read as follows:­
“83. Constitution of Tribunals, etc .—
(1)   The   State   Government   shall,   by   notification   in   the   Official
Gazette,  constitute  as   many  Tribunals  as   it   may think   fit,  for the
determination of any dispute, question or other matter relating to
a waqf or waqf property under this Act and define the local limits
and jurisdiction under this Act of each of such Tribunals.
(2)   Any mutawalli person interested in a waqf or any other person
aggrieved   by   an   order   made   under   this   Act,   or   rules   made
thereunder, may make an application within the time specified in
this   Act   or   where   no   such   time   has   been   specified,   within   such
time as may be prescribed, to the Tribunal for the determination of
any dispute, question or other matter relating to the waqf.
(3)   Where   any   application   made   under   sub­section   (1)   relates   to
any   waqf   property   which   falls   within   the   territorial   limits   of   the
jurisdiction   of   two   or   more   Tribunals,   such   application   may   be
made   to  the  Tribunal   within   the  local  limits   of   whose  jurisdiction
the   mutawalli   or   any   one   of   the   mutawallis   of   the   waqf   actually
and   voluntarily   resides,   carries   on   business   or   personally   works
for gain, and, where any such application is made to the Tribunal
aforesaid, the other Tribunal or Tribunals having jurisdiction shall
not   entertain   any   application   for   the   determination   of   such
dispute, question or other matter: 
Provided that  the State  Government may,  if it is of opinion
that it is expedient in the interest of the waqf or any other person
interested   in   the   waqf   or   the   waqf   property   to   transfer   such
application   to   any   other   Tribunal   having   jurisdiction   for   the
determination  of  the   dispute,  question   or  other matter  relating  to
such waqf or waqf property, transfer such application to any other
Tribunal   having   jurisdiction,   and,   on   such   transfer,   the   Tribunal
to   which   the   application   is   so   transferred   shall   deal   with   the
application from the stage which was reached before the Tribunal
from which the application has been so transferred, except where
the   Tribunal   is   of   opinion   that   it   is   necessary   in   the   interests   of
justice to deal with the application afresh.
(4)   Every Tribunal shall consist of—
(a) one   person,   who   shall   be   a   member   of   the   State
Judicial Service holding a rank, not below that of
a   District,   Sessions   or   Civil   Judge,   Class   I,   who
shall be the Chairman;
13

(b) one person, who shall be an officer from the State
Civil   Services   equivalent   in   rank   to   that   of   the
Additional District Magistrate, Member;
(c) one   person   having   knowledge   of   Muslim  law   and
jurisprudence, Member,
and the appointment of every such person may be made either by
name or by designation.
(4A) The   terms   and   conditions   of   appointment   including   the
salaries   and   allowances   payable   to   the   Chairman   and   other
members   other   than   persons   appointed   as   ex   officio   members
shall be such as may be prescribed.
(5)   The Tribunal shall be deemed to be a civil court and shall have
the   same   powers   as   may   be   exercised   by   a   civil   court   under   the
Code   of   Civil   Procedure,   1908   (5   of   1908),   while   trying   a   suit,   or
executing a decree or order.
(6)   Notwithstanding   anything   contained   in   the   Code   of   Civil
Procedure,   1908   (5   of   1908),   the   Tribunal   shall   follow   such
procedure as may be prescribed.
(7)   The   decision   of   the   Tribunal   shall   be   final   and   binding   upon
the parties to the application and it shall have the force of a decree
made by a civil court.
(8)   The execution of any decision of the Tribunal shall be made by
the   civil   court   to   which   such   decision   is   sent   for   execution   in
accordance   with   the   provisions   of   the   Code   of   Civil   Procedure,
1908 (5 of 1908).
(9)   No   appeal   shall   lie   against   any   decision   or   order   whether
interim or otherwise, given or made by the Tribunal: 
Provided   that   a   High   Court   may,   on   its   own   motion   or   on
the  application of the Board or any person aggrieved,  call for and
examine   the   records   relating   to   any   dispute,   question   or   other
matter which has been determined by the Tribunal for the purpose
of   satisfying   itself   as   to   the   correctness,   legality   or   propriety   of
such   determination   and   may   confirm,   reverse   or   modify   such
determination or pass such other order as it may think fit.
85.   Bar   of   jurisdiction   of   civil   courts .—No   suit   or   other   legal
proceeding   shall   lie   in   any   civil   court   in   respect   of   any   dispute,
question   or   other   matter   relating   to   any   waqf,   waqf   property   or
other   matter   which   is   required   by   or   under   this   Act   to   be
determined by a Tribunal.
14

17. It   is   relevant   to   note   at   this   stage   that   the   words   “ eviction   of
tenant   or   determination   of   rights   and   obligations   of   the   lessor
and the lessee of such property ” were inserted in sub­section (1) of
Section 83, after  the words “waqf property”, by Amendment Act 27 of
2013. 
18. Similarly,  the   words,  “civil  court”  were  substituted  by  the  words
“civil court, revenue court and other authority” , in Section 85, by
Amendment Act 27 of 2013.
19. Thus,   Act   27   of   2013   did   2   things.   First   it   expanded   the
jurisdiction   of   Waqf   Tribunal   even   to   cover   landlord­tenant   disputes
and   the   rights   and   obligations   of   lessor   and   lessee.   Second,   the
Amendment Act enlarged the bar of jurisdiction, to cover even revenue
courts and other authorities.
20. Sub­section   (2)   of   Section   83   of   the   1995   Act   indicates   the
persons   who   are   entitled   to   invoke   the   jurisdiction   of   the   Tribunal.
They are,   (i)   any mutawalli of the waqf;   (ii)   a person interested in the
waqf; or   (iii)   any other person aggrieved by any order made under the
Act or Rules or any order made there under.
15

21. Dehors   the   jurisdiction   conferred   upon   the   Tribunal   under
Section   83(1)   and   dehors   the   bar   of   jurisdiction   of   the   civil   court,
revenue court and any other authority under Section 85, the 1995 Act
contains a special provision in Section 86 for the appointment by the
civil court, of a Receiver, in certain cases. Section 86 reads as follows:­
86.   Appointment   of   a   receiver   in   certain   cases ­
Notwithstanding   anything   contained   in   the   Code   of   Civil
Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), or in any other law for the time being
in   force,   where   any   suit   or   other   legal   proceeding   is   instituted   or
commenced­
(a)  by or on behalf of a Board­
(i)  to   set   aside   the   sale   of   any   immovable
property, which is waqf property, in execution
of a decree or order of a civil court;
(ii)  to   set   aside   the   transfer   of   any   immovable
property, which is waqf property, made by the
mutawalli   thereof,   whether   for   valuable
consideration   or   not,   without   or   otherwise
than   in   accordance   with,   the   sanction   of   the
Board;
(iii)  to   recover   possession   of   the   property   referred
to   in   clause   (a)   or   clause   (b)   or   to   restore
possession   of   such   property   to   the   mutawalli
of the concerned waqf; or
(b)  by   a   mutawalli   to   recover   possession   of   immovable
property,   which   is   waqf   property,   which   has   been
transferred   by   a   previous   mutawalli,   whether   for
valuable   consideration   or   not,   without   otherwise
than   in   accordance   with   the   sanction   of   the   Board,
and which is in the possession of the defendant,
the   court   may,   on   the   application   of   the   plaintiff,
appoint   a   receiver   of   such   property   and   direct   such
receiver to pay from time to time to the plaintiff, out
of   the   income   of   the   property,   such   amount   as   the
court   may   consider   to   be   necessary   for   further
prosecution of the suit.
16

22. Section 86 thus recognises the  right of the Board to institute or
commence any suit or other legal proceeding,  (i)  to set aside the sale of
a waqf property in execution of a decree of civil court;   (ii)   to set aside
the transfer of any waqf property made by the mutawalli,   without the
sanction   of   the   Board   or   otherwise   than   in   accordance   with   the
sanction   of   the   Board;   and   (iii)   to   recover   and   restore   possession   of
such property to the mutawalli. Clause (b) of Section 86 recognises a
similar right for the mutawalli to recover possession of waqf property,
which   has   been   transferred   by   the   previous   mutawalli   or   any   other
person without the sanction of the Board.
23. It   is   therefore   clear   from   Section   86,   that   in   suits   or   other
proceedings   instituted   by   the   Board   falling   under   clause   (a)   or   those
instituted by  the mutawalli falling  under  clause (b) of Section 86, the
civil   court   will   have   jurisdiction   to   appoint   a   receiver.   As   a   corollary,
the bar under Section 85 will have no application to cases covered by
Section 86.
24. Apart   from   the   bar   of   jurisdiction   of   civil   courts   under   Section
85,   the   Act   envisages   yet   another   bar   under   Section   88.   Section   88
excludes the jurisdiction of a civil court to entertain a challenge to any
17

notification   or   order   or   decision   made,   proceeding   or   action   taken   by
the   Central   Government   or   the   State   Government   under   the   Act.
Section 88 reads as follows:­
“ 88.   Bar   to   challenge   the   validity   of   any   notification,   etc .—
Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, no notification or
order or decision made, proceeding or action taken, by the Central
Government   or   the   State   Government   under   this   Act   or   any   rule
made thereunder shall be questioned in any civil court.”
25. Section   89   of   the   Waqf   Act,   1995   contains   a   rule   similar   to
Section   80   CPC,   in   respect   of   suits   instituted   against   the   Board.
Interestingly, Section 90 which regulates the procedure for the issue of
notice   of   suits,   refers   both   to   courts   and   tribunals.     It   reads   as
follows:­
“ 90.   Notice   of   suits,   etc.,   by   courts .—   (1)   In   every   suit   or
proceeding relating to a title to or possession of a waqf property or
the right of a mutawalli or beneficiary, the court or Tribunal shall
issue notice to the Board at the cost of the party instituting such
suit or proceeding.
(2)   Whenever   any   waqf   property   is   notified   for   sale   in
execution   of   a   decree   of   a   civil   court   or   for   the   recovery   of   any
revenue,   cess,   rates   or  taxes   due   to   the   Government   or  any  local
authority, notice shall be given to the Board by the court, Collector
or other person under whose order the sale is notified.
(3)   In   the   absence   of   a   notice   under   sub­section   (1),   any
decree or order passed in the suit or proceeding shall be declared
void, if the Board, within one month of its coming to know of such
suit or proceeding, applies to the court in this behalf.
(4)   In the absence of a notice under sub­section (2), the sale
shall   be   declared   void,   if   the   Board,   within   one   month   of   its
coming  to   know   of   the   sale,   applies   in   this   behalf   to   the   court   or
other authority under whose order the sale was held.
18

26. It   is   seen   from   sub­section   (1)   of   Section   90   that   it   uses   the
words,   “the   court   or   Tribunal”   and   it   refers   to   suit   or   proceeding
relating to title to or possession of a   waqf   property or the right of the
mutawalli  or beneficiary.
27. A cumulative reading of Sections 86, 89 and 90 would show that
the   bar   of   jurisdiction   under   Section   85   is   not   total   and   omnipotent
and   that   there   may   be   cases   which   could   still   be   entertained   by  civil
courts. In fact, Section 93 which prohibits the  mutawalli  from entering
into   a   compromise   with   the   opposite   party   in   any   suit,   also   refers   to
“court”.  Section 93 reads as follows:­
“ 93. Bar to compromise of suits by or against mutawallis .—No
suit   or   proceeding   in   any   court   by   or   against   the   mutawalli   of   a
waqf relating to title to waqf property or the rights of the mutawalli
shall be compromised without the sanction of the Board.”
28. We have seen elsewhere that Section 83(2) specifically enables, (i)
any mutawalli; (ii) any person interested in a waqf; and (iii) any other
person   aggrieved   by   an   order   made   under   the   Act,   to   invoke   the
jurisdiction   of   the   Tribunal   for   the   determination   of   any   dispute,
question   or   other   matter   relating   to   the   waqf.   Section   83(2)   does   not
make any reference to the Waqf Board. However, Section 94(1) enables
the Board to apply to the Tribunal, for appropriate orders, whenever a
19

mutawalli fails to perform an act recognized by Muslim Law as pious,
religious   and   charitable.   Under   Section   61   of   the   1954   Act,   such   an
application can be made by the Board only to the court, but now it can
be made to the Tribunal under Section 94(1). 
29. In view of the language employed in Sections 83 and 85, coupled
with the reference to civil courts in Sections 86, 90 and 93, it appears
that the question of bar of jurisdiction of the civil court, has been left
by   the   law   makers   to   the   vagaries   of   judicial   opinion   and   this   has
given rise to conflicting decisions, to some of which, we shall now turn
our attention.
30. Some   of   the   decisions   of   this   Court,   in   which   this   controversy
was addressed, are presented in the form of a table, for the purpose of
easy   appreciation.   Apart   from   the   cause   title   and   citation,   the   table
below   gives   an   indication   of   the   forum   from   which   the   original
proceedings   emanated   in   those   cases,   the   reliefs   sought   by   the
plaintiff/applicant   in   those   original   proceedings   and   a   summary   of
facts and the ratio laid down in each of them.
20

S.No Cause Title &
Case No.  Emanating 
from Civil 
Court / Waqf 
Tribunal Reliefs sought in 
the original 
proceeding Opinion of  this court on the 
question of  Jurisdiction   of 
civil court/Tribunal
1 Sayed
Muhammed
Mashur Kunhi
Koyal Thangal
vs.
Badagara
Jumayath Palli
Dharas
Committee
(2004) 7 SCC
708 Civil Court Declaration   of   Title
and   Recovery   of
possession   of   the
Plaint   Schedule
Property.  1.    The matter arose out of a civil
suit   filed   in   1984,   before   the
advent of the Waqf Act, 1995.
2.     The   trial   court   decreed   the
suit,   but   the   first   appellate   court
reversed  it.    In  the  second  appeal
filed   in   1988   which   came   up   for
hearing   in   2001   after   the   advent
of   the   1995   Act,   the   High   Court
framed   a   question   with   reference
to   Section   85   and   held   that   the
civil   court   had   jurisdiction   to   try
the suit.
3.  Though this Court reversed the
judgment   of   the   High   Court,   the
same   was   not   on   the   question   of
maintainability   of   the   suit.   The
net   result   is   that   the   opinion   of
the High court on  the question of
jurisdiction was left untouched. 
2 Sardar Khan 
vs. 
Syed Najmul
Hasan
(2007) 10 SCC
727 Civil Court   Not   clear   from   the
narration   of   facts   in
the judgment. 1.  The suit was filed in December,
1976,   and   the   trial   (civil)   court
dismissed   the   suit   on   merits   on
23.01.1996.   The   Waqf   Act,   1995
came into force w.e.f. 01.01.1996.
2.   The   plaintiff   filed   an   appeal
before   High   court   on   1­3­1996
and contended that the civil court
ceased   to   have   jurisdiction   after
the  coming into   force  of  the  1995
Act.   High   court   agreed   and
relegated   the   parties   to   the   Waqf
Tribunal.   This   was   challenged   in
this court.  
3.     This   Court  referred  to  Section
7(5)   of   the   Waqf   Act,   1995   and
held that the tribunal will have no
jurisdiction   to   decide   any   matter
which is the subject matter of any
suit instituted or commenced in a
civil   court   before   commencement
of the 1995 Act.
4.  So holding, this Court reversed
the   judgment   of   the   High   Court
21

which relegated the parties to the
Waqf tribunal.
3 Ramesh
Gobindram 
vs. 
Surgra
Humayun
Mirza Waqf
(2010) 8 SCC
726 Waqf Tribunal Suit   for   Eviction   of
tenants   occupying
Waqf properties.  1 .   Suits   for   eviction   of   tenants
filed   before   the   Waqf   Tribunal
were   decreed.   The   tenants   filed
revision   petitions   before   the   High
Court   but   the   High   Court
dismissed   the   revision   petitions.
Hence   the   tenants   were   on
appeal.
2 .   This Court held that the Waqf
Act,   1995   does   not   provide   for
any   proceedings   before   the
tribunal   for   determination   of   a
dispute concerning the eviction of
a   tenant   in   occupation   of   Waqf
property   or   the   rights   and
obligations   of   the   lessor   and
lessees of such property.
3.   Holding that a suit for eviction
of   tenants   from   what   is
admittedly   a   waqf   property   could
be filed only before the civil court
and   not   before   the   tribunal,   this
Court   overruled   the   views   of   the
High   Courts   of   Andhra   Pradesh,
Rajasthan,   Madhya   Pradesh,
Kerala   and   Punjab   and   Haryana.
The   views   taken   by   the   High
Courts   of   Allahabad,   Karnataka,
Madras   and   Bombay   were
affirmed.   It   was   further   held   that
the   interest   of   those   uninterested
in  the  waqf   (non­muslims)   will   be
put   in   jeopardy   if   Section   6(1)   is
limited   to   only   the   muttavalli,
board   and   those   interested   in
waqf,   hence   the  special  limitation
imposed   by   Section   6(1)   is
inapplicable to strangers.
4 Board of Waqf
vs. 
Anis Fatma
Begum
(2010) 14 SCC
588 Civil Court  Questions   raised
were:   (i)   whether   the
division   of
immovable   property
into   two   distinctive
parts,   one   for   waqf­
al­al­aulad,   and
another   for   pious
and   religious 1.     While   the   single   judge   of   the
High   Court   held   that   the   Waqf
Act   is   applicable   for   the   property
earmarked   for   waqf­al­al­aulad,
the   Division   Bench   of   the   High
Court reversed it. 
2.   While reversing the decision of
the   Division   Bench   of   the   High
Court,   this   Court   held   that   the
22

purposes   is   in
accordance   with   the
Act;   and   (ii)   whether
the   Waqf   Act   is
applicable   for   the
portion   of   the
property   earmarked
for waqf­al­al­aulad. words,   “any   dispute,   question   or
other   matters”   are   words   of   very
wide   connotation   and   that   the
tribunal has all the powers of the
civil   court   including  the  power  to
grant   temporary   injunctions
under Order XXXIX, CPC.
3.     This   Court   further   held   that
though   Section   83(2)   refers   to
orders   passed   under   the   Act,
Sections   83(1)   and   84   are
independent   provisions   and   that
they   do   not   require   an   order
passed under the Act for invoking
the   jurisdiction   of   the   Waqf
Tribunal.     Even   if   no   order   has
been   passed   under   the   Act,   the
party   can   approach   the   Waqf
Tribunal.
4.     The   decision   in   Ramesh
Gobindram   was  distinguished,  on
the  ground  that  the  same   related
to an eviction dispute.
5 Punjab State
Waqf Board 
vs.
 Pritpal Singh
2013 SCC
Online SC
1345 Waqf Tribunal Suit   for   possession
and mesne profits.  1.   A   suit   for   possession   and
mesne profits was decreed by the
Waqf   Tribunal.   But   on   a   writ
petition, the High Court set aside
the   judgment   of   the   Waqf
Tribunal   on   the   ground   that   the
Tribunal   had   no   jurisdiction   to
entertain a suit for ejectment.
2.     However,   this   Court   set  aside
the   judgment   of   the   High   Court
holding   that   the   suit   was
maintainable   before   the   Waqf
Tribunal.   This Court pointed out
that   the   High   Court   mistook   the
suit to be one for eviction, though
in  fact,  it  was  for  possession   and
mesne profits. 
6 Akkode
Jumayath Palli
Paripalana
Committee  
vs.
P.V. Ibrahim
Haji and Ors.
(2014) 16 SCC
65 First filed 
before Civil 
Court, but 
later 
transferred to 
Waqf Tribunal Suit   for   permanent
injunction 1.   A   suit   for   permanent
injunction   was   first   filed   before
the   civil   court,   but   it   was
transferred to the waqf tribunal.
2.    The waqf tribunal decreed the
suit   and   granted   a   decree   of
perpetual   injunction,   restraining
the defendants from interfering in
the   administration,   management,
peaceful   possession   and
23

enjoyment   of   the   mosque,   the
madarassa   run   by   it   and   all   the
assets attached to the mosque.
3.     On   revision   under   Section
83(9)   of   the   Act,   the   Kerala   High
Court   set   aside   the   judgment   of
the   waqf   tribunal   holding   that   a
suit   for   perpetual   injunction   is
not   maintainable   before   the   waqf
tribunal.   The   High   Court   relied
upon the decision of this Court in
Ramesh   Gobindram.   This
judgment   of   the   High   Court   was
challenged before this Court.
4.    This Court allowed the appeal
by   relying   upon   the   decision   in
W.B.   Waqf   Board   v .   Anis   Fatma
Begum ,   (2010)   14   SCC   588,   in
which   Ramesh   Gobindram   was
distinguished.
5.   In   other   words   a   suit   for
perpetual   injunction   was   held   to
be   maintainable   before   the   waqf
tribunal.
7. Bhanwar Lal
vs. 
Rajasthan
Board of
Muslim Waqf 
(2014) 16 SCC
51 Civil Court 
(filed in 1980) Suit   was   first   filed
for   possession   and
rendition of accounts
but   subsequently
amended   to   include
a   prayer   to   declare
the   sale   deed   as
invalid.  1.     A   suit   was   filed   in   the   civil
court   for   possession   and
rendition of accounts way back in
the   year   1980.   During   the
pendency of the suit, the property
was   sold   in   1983   and   hence   the
plaint   was   amended   for
additional   relief   of   declaration
that the sale deed was invalid.
2.       During   the   pendency   of   the
suit, the 1995 Act came into force
and   hence   the   plaintiffs
themselves   (State   Waqf   Board
and   Muslim   Board   Committee)
filed an application under Section
85 of the 1995 Act seeking return
of   the   plaint   to   enable   them   to
resubmit   the   same   before   the
waqf tribunal.
3.     The   Trial   court   allowed   the
application   on   the   ground   of   bar
of jurisdiction and the defendants
filed   a   revision   before   the   High
Court.   The   revision   was
dismissed   by  the  High   Court   and
the   defendant   was   before   this
24

Court.
4 .     After   taking   note   of   Section
7(5) and Section 85 as well as the
decision   in   Sardar   Khan,   this
Court   held   that   those   matters
which   are   already  pending  before
the  civil  court,  would  continue  to
be   adjudicated   by   the   civil   court,
even after if the subject matter is
covered by Section 6(1).
5.     The   decision   in   Ramesh
Gobindram,   was   extensively
referred to and it was held that a
suit  for  possession   and  rent  is   to
be   tried   by   the   civil   court,   but   a
suit   pertaining   to   removal   of
trustees   and   rendition   of
accounts   would   fall   within   the
domain of the tribunal.
6.       It   was   further   held   that   the
relief   of   cancellation   of   sale   deed
is   not   covered   by   Section   6   or   7
and that therefore it is to be tried
by the civil court.
8 Haryana Waqf
Board  
vs.
 Mahesh
Kumar
  (2014) 16 SCC
45 Civil Court Suit for possession
1.   A  suit for  possession  was  filed
by the Waqf   Board before the civil
court   on   the   ground   that   the
property   involved   was   notified   as
a   waqf   property   under   Section
5(2).
2.     The   trial   court   decreed   the
suit   but   the   first   appellate   court
reversed   it   on   the   ground   that   a
question has arisen as to whether
the   suit   property   is   a   waqf
property  or not and  that the  said
question   has   to   be   decided   only
by   the   tribunal.   So   holding,   the
first   appellate   court   set   aside   the
judgment   of   the   trial   court   and
ordered   the   return   of   the   plaint
under   Order   VII,   Rule   10.   The
High   Court   confirmed   the   said
judgment on a second appeal.
3.     Relying   upon   the   decision   in
Bhanwar   Lal ,   this   Court
dismissed   the   SLP,   thereby
confirming   the   view   of   the   first
appellate   court   and   the   High
25

Court   that   the   waqf   tribunal
alone had jurisdiction.
9 Faseela M 
vs. 
Munnerul
Islam Madrasa
Committee
(2014) 16 SCC
38
  Waqf Tribunal
  For   eviction   of   the
tenant,   filed   by
Madrasa Committee 1.   The Madarssa Committee filed
an   application   before   the   waqf
tribunal   for   the   eviction   of   a
person on the ground that he was
a   tenant   in   respect   of   a   waqf
property.     The  respondent  denied
that   the   subject   property   is   a
waqf   property   and   he   also
challenged   the   jurisdiction   of   the
tribunal.
2.   The waqf tribunal first ordered
the   return   of   the   plaint   for
presentation   before   a   civil   court
but   later   recalled   the   previous
order   on   the   ground   that   the
issue   whether   the   subject
property is a waqf property or not
has arisen for consideration.
3.     The   said   order   of   the   waqf
tribunal   was   challenged   in   a
revision   before   the   High   Court.
The   High   Court   confirmed   the
second order of the waqf tribunal.
4.  Holding that the issue relating
to   eviction   of   tenant   is   squarely
covered   by   the   decision   of   this
Court   in   Ramesh   Gobindram,
and   that   Bhanwar   Lal   is   not
inconsistent   with   Ramesh
Gobindram,   this   Court   allowed
the appeals and restored the first
order of the tribunal directing the
return of the plaint.
10 Rajasthan
Waqf Board 
vs. 
Devki Nandan
Pathak.
(2017) 14 SCC
561 Waqf Tribunal Suit   for   declaration
that   the   sale   of   the
subject   Property   was
void as it was a Waqf
Property.   There   was
also   an   alternative
prayer to prevent the
opponents   from
taking   forceful
possession   of   the
property   from   the
waqf.    1.   The   suit   was   filed   by   the
mutawalli   of   a   masjid   before   the
waqf tribunal.
2.     The   tribunal   held   the   suit
property   to   be   a   waqf   property
and hence decreed the suit.
3.     The   High   Court   set   aside   the
judgment  of   the   waqf  tribunal   on
a   revision   filed   by   the   persons
who purchased the property from
a   private   individual   as   though   it
was a private property.   The High
Court held that the remedy would
lie before the civil court.
26

4.     This   court   allowed  the  appeal
holding that the main controversy
in   the   suit   was   whether   the
subject   property   is   a   waqf
property or not and that the same
could   be   tried   only   by   the   waqf
tribunal.     The   decisions   in
Ramesh Gobindram  and  Bhanwar
Lal,   were relied upon.
5.     This   Court   also   relied   upon
Section   51   which   declares   the
sale   of   any   waqf   property,   made
without   the   prior   sanction   of   the
board   as   void   and   pointed   out
that   under   Section   52(2),   the
right   of   appeal   was   only   to   the
tribunal in such matters.
11 Dharampal
v.
Punjab Waqf
Board 
(2018) 11 SCC
449: Civil Court  Suit   was   for
Possession   and
injunction   restraining
the   defendants   from
changing   the   nature
of   the   land   and
making   any
construction over it 1.   The   State   Waqf   Board   filed   a
suit   for   possession   and
injunction before the civil court in
the   year   1991   (before   the   advent
of   the   1995   Act),   against  persons
who   continued   to   occupy   a   land
even   after   the   expiry   of   the   lease
and   who   also   encroached   upon
additional land.
2.  Defendant no.1  filed a counter
claim   to   the   effect   that   he   has
perfected   title   by   adverse
possession.
3.     By   a   judgment   delivered   in
1998   (after   the   advent   of   the
1995   Act),   the   suit   was
dismissed,   but   the   counter   claim
was   allowed   holding   that
defendant no.1 had perfected title
by adverse possession.
4 .   The   first   appellate   court
reversed the judgment and decree
of   the   trial   court,   dismissing   the
counter   claim   and   decreeing   the
suit   of   the   waqf   board   for
possession.
5.     The   High   Court   affirmed   the
judgment   of   the   first   appellate
court on a second appeal and the
dispute   landed   up   before   this
Court.
6.     This   Court   addressed   several
27

issues,   one   of   which   was   the   bar
of jurisdiction. Since the suit had
been filed before the advent of the
1995   Act,   this   Court   referred   to
Section   55C   of   the   Waqf   Act,
1954   inserted   by   way   of
Amendment Act 69 of 1984.
7.   But this court took note of the
fact   that   the   aforesaid
amendment under Act 69 of 1984
was   never   notified   and   that
therefore,   Section   55C   had   no
application.   As   a   consequence
this   Court   held   that   the   civil
court   had   jurisdiction   to   decide
the   suit   by   virtue   of   Section   6   of
the 1954 Act.
12 Punjab Waqf
Board 
vs. 
Sham Singh
Harike 
(2019) 4 SCC
698 There   were   two
civil   appeals
before   this
Court,   one
arising out of a
suit filed before
the   civil   court
for   permanent
injunction,   but
which   got
transferred   to
the   waqf
tribunal   and
the   other
arising out of a
suit filed before
the   waqf
tribunal   for
possession   and
permanent
injunction.  The   relief   sought   in
one   proceeding   was
for   a   permanent
injunction   and   the
relief   sought   in   the
second   proceeding
was   for   possession
and   permanent
injunction. 1.  There were two civil appeals 
before this Court.
2.  Facts in one appeal
*   Suit   for   permanent   injunction
was filed by the waqf board before
the   civil   court   seeking   to   restrain
the   respondents   from   raising   any
construction   and   changing   the
nature   of   the   property   from
agricultural to residential.
*   The respondent denied the title
of   the   waqf   board   and   raised   the
question   of   maintainability   of   the
suit .
*   The  suit  was  transferred   to  the
waqf   tribunal   but   an   application
for   rejection   of   plaint   was   filed
before the tribunal on the ground
that   the   tribunal   had   no
jurisdiction.
*   The   tribunal   dismissed   the
application   for  rejection   of   plaint,
holding   that   the   waqf   tribunal
had   jurisdiction.   But   the
judgment   of   the   tribunal   was
reversed   by   the   High   Court   on   a
revision,   by   relying   upon   the
judgment   of   this   Court   in
Ramesh   Gobindram.     The   High
Court   also   held   that   the   person
against whom reliefs were sought,
28

was a non­Muslim.
3.   Facts in next appeal
*   The   Waqf   Board   filed   a   suit   for
possession   and   injunction   before
the Waqf Tribunal. The defendant
admitted   tenancy   and   claimed
readiness   to   pay   the   rent.   The
waqf tribunal decreed the suit.
*   The   High   Court   on   a   revision
set   aside   the   judgment   of   the
waqf   tribunal   on   the   basis   of   the
decision in   Ramesh Gobindram .
4 .   The   judgment   of   the   High
Court   in   both   the   matters   came
up   for   consideration   before   this
Court in the two appeals.
5.   OPINION OF THIS COURT
*    After taking note of Section 55
of the Waqf Act, 1954, as it stood
prior to the 1984 amendment, the
amendments   sought   to   be   made
by   the   1984   Act   and   the
provisions   of   the   1995   Act,   this
Court   dealt   in   extenso   with   the
reasoning   of   this   Court   in
Ramesh Gobindram.
*  This Court also took note of the
decisions in   Bhanwar Lal, Sardar
Khan,   Faseela,   Anis   Fatma
Begum,   Mahesh   Kumar   and
Akkode   Jumayath   Palli
Paripalana   Committee .   The
provisions   of   Sections   6(1),   7(1),
33(4),   51(5),   52(4)   and   54(4)   as
well as the amendment to Section
83(1)   under   Act   27   of   2013   were
also referred to.
*   Thereafter   this   Court   held   at
the   outset   that   the   High   Court’s
view   that   the   right   of   a   non­
Muslim   cannot   be   jeopardized
under   the   Act,   is   contrary   to   the
statutory   scheme   contained   in
Section 6.
*   After   holding   so,   this   Court
allowed   the   1 st
  civil   appeal   which
29

arose out of a suit for permanent
injunction, earlier filed before the
civil court and later transferred to
the   waqf   tribunal.   The   reason
given   by   this   court   was   that   the
question   whether   the   subject
property is a waqf property or not
has   arisen   for   consideration   in
the   said   suit   and   hence   the
Tribunal had jurisdiction. 
*   However,   this   Court   dismissed
the 2 nd
  civil appeal on the ground
that   it   was   a   suit   for   possession
and   permanent   injunction   where
the property was admitted to be a
waqf   property   and   that   therefore
the issue arising therein was fully
covered   by   the   decision   in
Ramesh Gobindram .  
13 Kiran Devi
v.
Bihar State
Sunni Waqf
Board
2021 SCC
Online SC 280 Instituted   before
the   civil   court
but   it   was
transferred   to
waqf tribunal on
an   application
filed by the waqf
board   and   the
tenant   newly
inducted   into
the   premises   by
the waqf board. The   suit   was   for
declaration   that   the
plaintiff   had
succeeded   to   the
tenancy   rights,   as   a
member   of   joint
Hindu   family   and
that   therefore   the
plaintiff   is  entitled   to
continue as tenant.   1.   The   suit   was   originally
instituted   before   the   civil   court
but it was transferred to the waqf
tribunal   on   an   application   taken
out   by   the   waqf   board   and
another.     The  transfer  of   the  suit
to   the   tribunal   was   challenged
but in vain. Therefore, the parties
went   to   trial   before   the   waqf
tribunal. 
2.   The   tribunal   dismissed   the
suit,   but   on   a   writ   petition   filed
against   the   said   order,   the   High
Court   reversed   the   same.
Actually,   the   judgment   was   on
merits.
3 .   Before   this   Court   it   was
contended   that   the   tribunal   had
no   jurisdiction   in   view   of   the
decision in  Ramesh Gobindram .
4.   Though   this   Court   found   that
in   terms   of   Ramesh   Gobindram ,
the waqf tribunal could not grant
a   declaration   as   claimed   by   the
plaintiff,   this   Court   held   that   it
cannot   entertain   such   an
objection   especially   after   the
order   of   transfer   of   the   suit   from
the   civil   court   to   the   waqf
30

tribunal   had   attained   finality.   It
was   argued   that   the   parties
cannot confer jurisdiction upon a
tribunal   by   consent.   But   that
argument   was   repelled   on   the
ground   that   it   was   not   a   case
where   jurisdiction   was   conferred
by   consent   of   parties,   but   a   case
where   proceedings   were
transferred   by   a   judicial   order   to
a tribunal.
14 Telangana
State Waqf
Board
vs.  
Mohamed
Muzafar
2021 SCC
Online SC 537 Waqf Tribunal For   the   eviction   of
the   tenant,   both
from   the   tenanted
portion as well as the
encroached portion. 1 .   The   waqf   tribunal   decreed   the
suit   and   directed   the   defendants
to vacate the suit property. 
2.   But   on   a   revision,   the   High
Court   set   aside   the   judgment   of
the tribunal on the ground that in
view   of   the   decision   in   Ramesh
Gobindram   the   suit   was   not
maintainable   before   the   Waqf
Tribunal.
3.   However,   this   Court
distinguished   Ramesh Gobindram
on   the   ground   that   a   suit   for
ejectment   of   a   person   from   what
is   admittedly   a   waqf   property
would stand on a different footing
from   a   suit   for   ejectment   of   a
person   from   a   property   which   is
disputed to be a waqf property.
4.   This   Court   noted   the   decision
in   Faseela,   Anis   Fatma   Begum,
Mahesh   Kumar   and   Sham   Singh
Harike ,   and   eventually   came   to
the   conclusion   that   the   facts   and
circumstances   of   each   case   will
have   to   be   taken   note   of   in   the
background   of   the   legal
framework   contained   in   the   Waqf
Act,   to   determine   jurisdiction.
This   Court   reiterated   that
wherever   the   subject   property   is
disputed   to   be   a   waqf   property,
the   issue   would   fall   squarely
within the jurisdiction of the waqf
tribunal.
30. It   can   be   seen   from   the   table   given   above   that   the   original
31

proceedings   from   out   of   which   the   decisions   at   Sl.No.1   and   2   ( Syed
Muhammed Mashur Kunhi Koyal Thangal & Sardar Khan ) arose, were
instituted long before the advent of the Waqf Act, 1995 and hence the
ratio laid therein on the basis of Section 7(5) of the Act does not throw
any   light   upon   the   actual   controversy   on   hand.   The   decision   of   this
Court in   Ramesh Gobindram   included at Sl.No.3 in the table above, is
the one, which, ironically, attempted to settle the controversy on hand,
but has produced conflicting results in the subsequent decisions. The
only   question   that   arose   in   Ramesh   Gobindram ,   as   seen   from
paragraph   2   (of   the   SCC   report),   is   as   to   whether   or   not,   the   Waqf
Tribunal   is   competent   to   entertain   and   adjudicate   upon   disputes
regarding   eviction   of   persons   occupying   what   are   admittedly   waqf
properties.  For  finding  an   answer  to  this  question,  this  Court  started
its   discussion   with   the   well   established   rule   that   the   ouster   of
jurisdiction of the civil court is not to be readily inferred and that the
bar   of   jurisdiction   should   be   express   or   implied.   After   laying   such   a
foundation, this Court started building mainly upon Sections 6 and 7.
This was perhaps due to the caption given to Sections 6 and 7. While
Section 6 is given the caption, “D isputes regarding waqfs ”, Section 7 is
given   the   caption   “P ower   of   Tribunal   to   determine   disputes   regarding
32

waqfs ”. Sections 6 and 7 as they stood when   Ramesh Gobindram   was
decided, read as follows:­
6.   Disputes   regarding   waqfs .—(1)   If   any   question   arises
whether a particular property specified as waqf property in the list
of     waqfs   is   waqf   property   or   not   or   whether   a   waqf   specified   in
such list is a Shia waqf or Sunni waqf, the Board or the mutawalli
of the waqf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in
a Tribunal for the decision of the question and the decision of the
Tribunal in respect of such matter shall be final: 
Provided   that   no   such   suit   shall   be   entertained   by   the
Tribunal   after   the   expiry   of   one   year   from   the   date   of   the
publication of the list of waqfs: 
Explanation.—For  the   purposes   of   this   section   and   section
7, the expression “any person interested therein”, shall, in relation
to   any   property   specified   as   waqf   property   in   the   list   of   waqfs
published   after  the  commencement   of  this  Act,   shall  include   also
every person who, though not interested in the waqf concerned, is
interested in such property and to whom a reasonable opportunity
had been afforded to represent his case by notice served on him in
that behalf during the course of the relevant inquiry under section
4. 
(2)   Notwithstanding   anything   contained   in   sub­section   (1),
no   proceeding   under   this   Act   in   respect   of   any   waqf   shall   be
stayed   by  reason only of  the  pendency of  any  such  suit  or  of  any
appeal or other proceeding arising out of such suit. 
(3)   The   Survey  Commissioner  shall   not  be   made   a  party  to
any   suit   under   sub­section   (1)   and   no   suit,   prosecution   or   other
legal proceeding shall lie against him in respect of anything which
is  in good  faith  done  or  intended  to  be  done  in  pursuance  of  this
Act or any rules made thereunder. 
(4) The list of waqfs shall, unless it is modified in pursuance
of   a   decision   of   the   Tribunal   under   sub­section   (1),   be   final   and
conclusive. 
(5)   On   and   from   the   commencement   of   this   Act   in   a   State,
no suit or other legal proceeding shall be instituted or commenced
in   a   court   in   that   State   in   relation   to   any   question   referred   to   in
sub­section (1). 
7.   Power   of   Tribunal   to   determine   disputes   regarding
waqfs .—(1)   If,   after   the   commencement   of   this   Act,   any   question
arises, whether a particular property specified as waqf property in
a list of waqfs is waqf property or not, or whether a waqf specified
33

in   such   list   is   a   Shia   waqf   or   a   Sunni   waqf,   the   Board   or   the
mutawalli of the waqf, or any person interested therein, may apply
to the Tribunal having jurisdiction in relation to such property, for
the   decision   of   the   question   and   the   decision   of   the   Tribunal
thereon shall be final: 
Provided that— 
(a) in the case of the list of waqfs relating to any part
of   the   State   and   published   after  the   commencement
of   this   Act   no   such   application   shall   be   entertained
after   the   expiry   of   one   year   from   the   date   of
publication of the list of waqfs; and 
(b) in the case of the list of waqfs relating to any part
of   the   State   and   published   at   any   time   within   a
period   of   one   year   immediately   preceding   the
commencement of this Act, such an application may
be   entertained   by   Tribunal   within   the   period   of   one
year from such commencement: 
Provided   further   that   where   any   such   question   has   been
heard and finally decided by a civil court in a suit instituted before
such   commencement,   the   Tribunal   shall   not   re­open   such
question. 
(2) Except where the Tribunal has no jurisdiction by reason
of   the   provisions   of   sub­section   (5),   no   proceeding   under   this
section   in   respect   of   any   waqf   shall   be   stayed   by   any   court,
tribunal or other authority by reason only of the pendency of any
suit,   application   or  appeal   or   other   proceeding   arising   out   of   any
such suit, application, appeal or other proceeding. 
(3) The Chief Executive Officer shall not be made a party to
any application under sub­section (1). 
(4) The list of waqfs and  where any such list is modified in
pursuance of a decision of the Tribunal under sub­section (1), the
list as so modified, shall be final. 
(5)   The   Tribunal   shall   not   have   jurisdiction   to   determine
any   matter   which   is   the   subject­matter   of   any   suit   or   proceeding
instituted   or   commenced   in   a   civil   court   under   sub­section   (1)   of
section   6,   before   the   commencement   of   the   Act   or   which   is   the
subject­matter   of   any   appeal   from   the   decree   passed   before   such
commencement   in   any   such   suit   or   proceeding   or   of   any
application   for   revision   or   review   arising   out   of   such   suit,
proceeding or appeal, as the case may be. 
31. A   bare   reading   of   Sections   6   and   7   extracted   above,   shows   that
the language employed therein appears to have deflected the attention
34

of many a court without exception. The reason why we say so, is this.
A   careful   look   at   the   scheme   of   the   Act   would   show   that   the   Act   is
divided into 9 chapters. Chapter­II which contains Sections 4 to 8, is
primarily   concerned   with   the   survey   of   waqfs 4
.   Sections   6   and   7   are
incidental to the scheme of Chapter­II alone, which is why they speak
only   about   two   questions   namely,   (i)   whether   a   particular   property
specified   as   a   waqf   property   in   the   list   of   waqfs   is   actually   a   waqf
property or not; and  (ii)  whether a waqf specified in such list is a Shia
waqf   or   Sunni   waqf.   While   Section   4   contemplates   a   preliminary
survey of all waqfs in the State, Section 5(2) speaks about publication
of   the   list   of   waqfs   (separately   for   Shia   and   Sunni)   in   the   official
gazette. Since Sections 6 and 7 follow Sections 4 and 5, they refer only
to the aforesaid two questions. In other words, the questions relevant
for the purposes of Sections 4 and 5 alone, are dealt with in Sections 6
and 7 and hence the discussion regarding the jurisdiction of the Waqf
Tribunal should not start and end with Sections 6 and 7.
32. Sections 83 and 85, as well as Sections 86, 90 and 93, which use
the   word   “court”,   are   to   be   found   in   Chapter   VIII   of   the   Act.   The
heading  given to Chapter  VIII  is “Judicial Proceedings”. Therefore, for
4   The words “waqfs”, has been substituted with the word “auqaf”, by the Amendment Act 27 of 2013.
35

finding   an   answer   to   the   question   relating   to   the   bar   of   jurisdiction
under   Section   85,   it   is   not   enough   merely   to   refer   to   Section   6(5)   or
Section   7(2).   The   language   of   Section   85   is   clearly   in   contrast   to   the
language employed in Section 6(5) and Section 7(2).
33. A   conjoint   reading   of  Sections  6,  7   and  85  would  show  that   the
bar of jurisdiction of civil court contained in Section 6(5) and Section
7(2) is confined to Chapter­II, but the bar of jurisdiction under Section
85 is all pervasive. This can be seen from the following distinguishing
features:­
(i) Section 6(5) bars the institution or commencement of a suit
or   other   legal   proceeding   in   a   court   “ in   relation   to   any   question
referred   to   in   sub­section   (1) ”.   Sub­section   (1)   of   Section   6   speaks
only   about   two   questions   namely,   whether   a   particular   property
specified as  a waqf  property  in  the  list  of  waqfs is a  waqf property   or
not and whether a waqf is Shia waqf or Sunni waqf;
(ii) Section 7(2) bars any court, tribunal or other authority from
staying any proceeding before the Waqf Tribunal, in respect of a waqf,
on   the   only   ground   of   pendency   of   any   suit,   application   or   appeal   or
other   proceeding.   Section   7(2)   specifically   relates   to   the   proceedings
36

under Section 7 and not to any other proceeding. This is clear by the
use   of   the   words,   “ no   proceeding   under   this   Section ”.   Section   7(1)
again   deals   only   with   two   questions   namely,   whether   a   particular
property   specified   as   waqf   property   in   the   list   of   waqfs   is   a   waqf
property or not and whether a waqf specified in the list is a Shia waqf
or   Sunni  waqf.   Therefore,  the   bar   under   Section  7(2)  is   also  confined
only   to   these   two   questions,   on   account   of   the   use   of   the   words,   “ no
proceeding under this Section ”.
(iii) While Sections 6(1) and 7(1) speak only about two questions
which   are   germane   to   the   matters   covered   by   Chapter­II   of   the   Act
alone,   Section   85   speaks   (i)   about   any   dispute,   question   or   other
matter relating to any waqf or waqf property  and (ii) about “ other
matter   which   is   required   by   or   under   this   Act   to   be   determined
by a Tribunal ”. 
(iv)   A   major   distinguishing   feature   between   Sections   6(1)   and   7
(1)   on   the   one   hand   and   Section   83   on   the   other   hand   is   that   the
dispute,   question   or   other   matter   referred   to   in   Sections   6  and   7   are
confined  only  to  what  is  included  in  the  list  of  waqfs  prepared  under
Section 4 and published under Section 5. The words  “specified … in
37

the   list   of   waqfs”   found   in  sections   6  (1)   and   7(1),  are   conspicuous
by their absence in section 83 (1). Therefore, it is clear that   Sections
6 and 7 speak only about two categories of cases, but Section 83
covers   the   entire   gamut   of   possible   disputes   in   relation   to   any
waqf or waqf property .   
34. It is seen that there are 2 limbs to Section 85. The words,   “any
dispute,   question   or   other   matter   relating   to   any   waqf   or   waqf
property”   used   in   the   first   limb   of   Section   85,   provide   a   clear
indication   that   the   Tribunal   would   have   jurisdiction   to   adjudicate
upon any dispute and answer any question relating to a waqf or waqf
property, including  the two questions mentioned in Sections 6(1) and
7(1). The words in the second limb of Section 85 namely, “ other matter
which is required by or under this Act to be determined by a Tribunal ”,
seek   to   cover   matters   which   have   no   relevance   to   the   two   questions
covered by Section 6(1) and 7(1).
35. Unfortunately,  many  courts   were   misled  by   the  reference  to   two
specific questions in Sections 6(1) and 7(1), to come to the conclusion
that   the   bar   of   jurisdiction   was   confined   only   to   disputes   revolving
around those two questions.
38

36. Interestingly, the basis of the decision in  Ramesh Gobindram   was
removed   through   an   amendment   under   Act   27   of   2013.   As   we   have
stated   elsewhere,   Ramesh   Gobindram   sought   to   address   the   question
whether   a   Waqf   Tribunal   was   competent   to   entertain   and   adjudicate
upon disputes regarding eviction of persons in occupation of what are
admittedly waqf properties. Since this Court answered the question in
the negative, Section 83(1) was amended by Act 27 of 2013 to include
the words, “ eviction of tenant or determination of rights and obligations
of the lessor and lessee of such property” .
37. Simultaneously, sub­section (6) was inserted in Section 7 by Act
27 of 2013. This sub­section (6) of Section 7 states that the Tribunal
shall   have   the   power   of   assessment   of   damages   by   unauthorized
occupation   of   waqf   property   and   to   penalize   such   unauthorized
occupants   for   their   illegal   occupation   of   the   waqf   property   and   to
recover the damages as arrears of land revenue through the Collector.
It reads as follows:
(6)   The   Tribunal   shall   have   the   powers   of   assessment   of   damages
by   unauthorised  occupation   of  waqf  property   and  to   penalise  such
unauthorised   occupants   for   their   illegal   occupation   of   the   waqf
property   and   to   recover   the   damages   as   arrears   of   land   revenue
through the Collector: 
Provided that whosoever, being a public servant, fails in his lawful
duty   to  prevent   or   remove   an   encroachment,   shall   on   conviction   be
punishable  with   fine  which  may   extend  to  fifteen   thousand  rupees
39

for each such offence. 
  Ideally,   the   provisions   of   sub­section   (6)   should   have   found   a   place
somewhere in Section 83, since what is sought to be covered by sub­
section (6) of Section 7 has no correlation to the two questions about
which Section 7(1) speaks. But the reason why the Parliament thought
fit to include something in Section 7, which has no correlation to sub­
section   (1)   of   Section   7,   is   perhaps   the   fact   that   Ramesh   Gobindram
turned primarily on the language of Sections 6 and 7.
38. The  upshot  of the above  discussion  is that  the basis of   Ramesh
Gobindram   now stands removed through amendment Act 27 of 2013.
In fact, when   Ramesh Gobindram   was decided, Sections 6(1) and 7(1)
enabled   only   three   categories   of   persons   to   approach   the   Waqf
Tribunal   for   relief.   They   are,   (i)   the   Board;   (ii)   the   mutawalli   of   the
waqf;   or   (iii)   any   person   interested   therein.   However,   the   explanation
under Section 6(1) clarified that the expression “ any person interested
therein ” shall include every person, who, though not interested in the
waqf,  is  interested  in   the  property.  But  by  Act  27  of  2013  the  words,
“ any   person   interested ”   were   substituted   by   the   words,   “ any   person
aggrieved ”,   meaning   thereby   that   even   a   non   Muslim   is   entitled   to
40

invoke the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Due to the substitution of the
words   “ any   person   aggrieved ”,   Act   27   of   2013   has   deleted   the
Explanation   under   6(1).   This   amendment   has   also   addressed   the
concern   expressed   in   Ramesh   Gobindram   (in   para   21   of   the   SCC
report)   whether  a non  Muslim  could be put  to jeopardy  by  the  bar  of
jurisdiction,   merely   because   the   property   is   included   in   the   list   of
waqfs.   We   must   point   out   at   this   stage   that   the   Explanation   under
sub­section   (1)   of   Section   6,   as   it   stood   at   the   time   when   Ramesh
Gobindram  was decided, already took care of this contingency, but was
omitted to be brought to the notice of this court.
39. Since   Ramesh   Gobindram ,   focused   mainly   upon   the   two
questions indicated in Sections 6(1) and 7(1) and reached a conclusion
that   the   Tribunal   would   have   no   jurisdiction   to   adjudicate   upon
disputes   concerning   properties   which   are   admittedly   waqf   properties,
some   of   the   decisions   which   followed   Ramesh   Gobindram   took   to   the
extreme   view   that   if   a   property   is   admitted   to   be   a   waqf   property,   by
both   parties,   the   Waqf   Tribunal   would   not   have   jurisdiction   to
adjudicate   upon   a   dispute   concerning   the   said   property.   Such   a
conclusion led to an incongruity namely that the Tribunal would have
jurisdiction   to   determine   the   larger   question   whether   a   property   is   a
41

waqf   property   or   not,   but   not   smaller   questions   relating   to   what   are
admittedly   waqf   properties.   Normally   while   interpreting   a   clause
relating   to   bar   of   jurisdiction   of   civil   courts   in   statutory   enactments,
this   court   would   tend   to   think,   depending   upon   the   language
employed,   that   larger   questions   could   still   be   decided   by  civil   courts,
while   smaller   questions   are   to   be   decided   by   the   special   Fora
constituted   under   the   Act.   But   in   the   case   of   Waqfs   Act,   1995,   the
reverse   has   happened,   with   the   courts   ruling   that   if   a   property   is
admittedly   a   waqf   property,   the   Tribunal   would   have   no   jurisdiction,
though it would have jurisdiction to decide whether or not a property
is a waqf property at all. 
40. The distinction sought to be drawn on the basis of admission or
denial   about   a   property   being   a   waqf   property,   was   also   capable   of
another mischievous result. Take for instance a case where a property
is disputed to be a waqf property. Then as per the decision in  Ramesh
Gobindram,   the   Waqf   Tribunal   would   have   jurisdiction   to   decide   the
question   whether   it   is   a   waqf   property   or   not.   Suppose   the   Tribunal
reaches the conclusion that the disputed property is a waqf property,
would the Tribunal then continue to have jurisdiction to grant relief or
would   it   be   denuded   of   the   jurisdiction,   merely   because   the   property
42

was   found   to   be   a   waqf   property   ?   This   is   a   question   for   which   no
answer   could  be  found  if  we   adopt  the  restrictive  interpretation.   This
is why the subsequent decisions of this Court found an easy way out
by   distinguishing   Ramesh   Gobindram.   For   instance,   the   decision   in
Anis   Fatma   Begum   distinguished   Ramesh   Gobindram   on   the   ground
that   Ramesh Gobindram   was confined to an eviction dispute and that
the words “ any dispute, question or other matters ” appearing in Section
83(1) are words of wide connotation. Similarly,  Akkode Jumayath Palli
Paripalana   Committee ,   held   a   suit   for   permanent   injunction   to   be
maintainable   before   a   Waqf   Tribunal,   on   the   ground   that   Ramesh
Gobindram ,   was   distinguished   in   Anis   Fatma   Begum .   Likewise,   the
ratio in   Ramesh Gobindram   was held in   Kiran Devi   to be incapable of
being   invoked   in   a   case   where   the   original   proceeding   was   first
instituted   before   the   Civil   Court   and   it   was   later   transferred   to   the
Waqf Tribunal, which order of transfer had attained finality.
41. Having   seen   the   extent   to   which   this   Court   followed   or
distinguished  Ramesh Gobindram  in subsequent decisions and having
seen that the basis of   Ramesh Gobindram   now stands removed by Act
27 of 2013, let us now turn our attention to the “ other matters” , which
43

are   required   by   or   under   the   Act   to   be   determined   by   the   Tribunal.
This is for reason that the second limb of Section 85, as we have seen
earlier,   bars   the   jurisdiction   of   any   Civil   Court,   Revenue   Court   and
any   other   authority,   in   respect   of   any   dispute,   question   or   other
matter which is required by or under this Act to be determined by the
Tribunal.
42. The various provisions of the Act which make a reference to the
Tribunal and the subject matter in relation to which such a reference
is made are presented in a tabular column as follows:­
Sl.N
o. Provision of the Act Subject Matter
1. Section 32(3) Wherever   the   Waqf   Board   has   settled   any
scheme   of   management   or   issued   a   direction,
any person interested in the waqf or affected by
the   settlement   of   a   scheme   or   directions   may
institute a suit before the Tribunal.
2. Section 33(4) A   mutawalli   or   other   person   aggrieved   by   an
order   passed   by   the   Chief   Executive   Officer
under   Section   33(3)   directing   such   person   to
make payment of any amount misappropriated,
misapplied   or   fraudulently   retained   and   to
restore  the  property  of the waqf,  may appeal  to
the Tribunal.
3. Section 35(1) The   Tribunal   is   conferred   with   the   power   to
order   conditional   attachment   of   any   property,
which, a mutawalli or any other person is likely
to   dispose   of   with   intent   to   delay   or   defeat   the
execution of any order passed under Section 33.
4. Section 38(7) Any   Executive   Officer   or   a   member   of   the   staff
who   is   aggrieved   by   an   order   of   removal   or
dismissal   passed   by   the   Waqf   Board   under
Section   38(6)   has   a   right   of   appeal   to   the
Tribunal.
5. Section 39(3) Whenever   a   building   or   other   place   which   was
44

earlier used for religious purpose or instruction
or   for   charity,   has   ceased   to   be   used   for   that
purpose, the Board may make an application to
the   Tribunal   for   an   order   for   recovery   of
possession.
6. Sections 40(2) and (4) The   decision   of   the   Board   on   the   question
whether a particular property is a waqf property
or   not   or   whether   a   waqf   is   a   Sunni   Waqf   or
Shia   Waqf,   is   made   subject   to   the   decision   of
the Tribunal under sub­section (2).  Similarly, a
direction   issued   by   the   Board   to   any   Trust   or
Society under  Section 40(3) to get registered, is
made   subject   to   the   decision   of   the   Tribunal
under sub­section (4)
7. Section 48(2) Whenever   a   Board   examines   the   Auditor’s
report   and   passes   orders   on   the   basis   of   the
report,   directing   the   recovery   of   any   amount
certified   by   the   Auditor,   the   mutawalli   or   any
other person aggrieved by such order may apply
to the Tribunal.
8. Section 52(4) Wherever   an   order   is   passed   by   the   Collector
under   Section   52(2)   directing   the   person   in
possession  of  a  property to  deliver the  property
to the Waqf Board, on the basis of a requisition
made   by   the   Board,   the   person   aggrieved   by
such order may file an appeal to the Tribunal.
9. Section 54(3) Whenever the Chief Executive Officer is satisfied
that   there   is   an   encroachment   on   a   waqf
property,   he   may   make   an   application   to   the
Tribunal for the removal of such encroachment.
10. Section 64(4) A mutawalli removed from office for the reasons
contained   in   clauses   (c)   to   (i)   of   sub­section   (1)
is entitled to file an appeal to the Tribunal.
11. Section 67(4) Any person aggrieved by an order passed by the
Board   superseding   the   Committee   of
Management may file an appeal to the Tribunal
under   the   1 st
  proviso   to   sub­section   (4)   of
Section 67.
12. Section 67(6) Whenever   a   member   of   a   Committee   of
Management   is   removed   by   the   Board,   instead
of   exercising   the   option   of   superseding   the
Committee   of   Management,   such   removed
member   may   file   an   appeal   to   the   Tribunal
under   the   2 nd
  proviso   to   sub­section   (6)   of
Section 67.
13. Section 69(3) Whenever a  scheme   is  framed   by  the  Board   for
the   administration   of   a   waqf,   which   include   a
provision   for   the   removal   of   the   mutawalli   and
the   appointment   of   his   successor,   a   person
45

aggrieved by the same may file an appeal to the
Tribunal.
14. Section 73(3) Whenever   a   direction   is   issued   by   the   Chief
Executive  Officer  to  any bank  to  pay  out  of the
money   belonging   to   the   waqf,   the   contribution
leviable under Section 72, the bank may file an
appeal to the Tribunal.
15. Sections 94(1) & (2) Whenever   a   mutawalli   who   is   under   an
obligation   to   perform   a   pious,   religious   or
charitable   act   fails   to   perform   such   act   or
whenever a mutawalli willfully fails to discharge
any   other   duties   imposed   on   him   under   the
waqf,   an   application   could   be   made   to   the
Tribunal   for   appropriate   directions   to   the
mutawalli.   If   it   is   a   case   covered   by   sub­
section(1),   the   Tribunal   may   be   moved   by   the
Board.   If   it   is   a   case   covered   by   sub­section(2)
the Tribunal may be moved by the Board or any
person interested in the waqf.
43. In  sum   and substance,  the Act  makes a  reference,  to  3  types of
remedies,   namely   that   of   a   suit,   application   or   appeal   before   the
Tribunal, in respect of the following matters:­
(i) Any   question   or   dispute   whether   a   property   specified   as
waqf   property   in   the   list   of   waqfs   is   a   waqf   property   or   not   [ Sections
6(1) & 7(1) ];
(ii) A question or dispute whether a waqf specified in the list of
waqfs is a Shia Waqf or Sunni Waqf [ Sections 6(1) & 7(1) ];
(iii) Challenge to the settlement of a scheme for management of
the   waqf   or   any   direction   issued   in   relation   to   such   management
46

[ Section 32(3) ];
(iv) Challenge   to   an   order   for   restitution/restoration   of   the
property   of   the   waqf   or   an   order   for   payment   to   the   waqf   of   any
amount   misappropriated   or   fraudulently   retained   by   the   mutawalli
[ Section 33(4) ];
(v) Conditional   attachment   of   the   property   of   a   mutawalli   or
any other person [ Section 35(1) ];
(vi) Challenge   to   the   removal   or   dismissal   of   an   Executive
Officer or member of the staff [ Section 38(7) ];
(vii) Application   by   the   Board,   seeking   an   order   for   recovery   of
possession   of   a   property   earlier   used   for   religious   purpose   but   later
ceased to be used as such [ Section 39(3) ];
(viii)   Challenge   to   a  direction   issued  by   the   Board  to   any   Trust
or Society to get it registered [ Section 40(4) ];
(ix) Challenge   to   an   order   for   recovery   of   money   from   the
mutawalli, as certified by the Auditor [ Section 48(2) ];
(x) Challenge   to   an   order   for   delivery   of   possession   of   a
47

property issued by the Collector [ Section 52(4) ];
(xi) Application by the Chief Executive Officer for the removal of
encroachment   and   for   delivery   of   possession   of   a   waqf   property
( Section 54(3) ];
(xii) Challenge   to   the   removal   of   mutawalli   from   office   [ Section
64(4) ];
(xiii)   Challenge   to   an   order   superseding   the   Committee   of
Management [ Section67(4) ];
(xiv) Challenge   to  the   removal   of   a   member   of   the  Committee  of
Management [ Section 67(6) ];
(xv) Challenge   to   any   scheme   framed   by   the   Board   for   the
administration   of   waqf,   containing   a   provision   for   the   removal   of   the
mutawalli   and   the   appointment   of   the   person   next   in   hereditary
succession [ Section 69(3) ];
(xvi)    Challenge to an order for recovery of contribution payable
by   the   waqf   to   the   Board,   from   out   of   the   monies   lying   in   a   bank
[ Section 73(3) ];
(xvii)   any   dispute,   question   or   other   matter   relating   to   a   waqf
{section 83(1)}
48

(xviii)   any   dispute,   question   or   other   matter   relating   to   a   waqf
property {section 83(1)}
(xix)   eviction   of   a   tenant   or   determination   of   the   rights   and
obligations of lessor and lessee of waqf property {section 83(1) after its
amendment under Act 27 of 2013 } 
(xx)   Whenever a mutawalli fails to perform an act or duty which
he is liable to perform [ Section 94 ].
44. If the Waqf Act, 1995 had merely stopped with a reference to the
matters listed above as capable of being adjudicated by the Tribunal,
there would have been no scope for any confusion. But unfortunately,
the Act makes a specific reference to court/civil Court also in certain
places. We have already seen Sections 86, 90 and 93 making specific
reference   to   “Court”.   Section   68(6)   goes   a   step   further   by   making   a
reference to ‘civil court’ and it reads as follows:­
“ 68. Duty  of mutawalli  or committee to deliver possession of
records, etc.­
(1)          …                          …                           …
(2)          …                          …                           …
(3)          …                          …                           …
(4)          …                          …                           …
(5)          …                          …                           …
(6)       Nothing   contained   in   this   section   shall   bar   the
institution   of   any   suit   in   a   competent   civil   court   by   any
person   aggrieved   by  any  order   made   under  this   section,   to
establish   that   he   has   right,   title   and   interest   in   the
properties   specified   in   the   order   made   by   any   Magistrate
under sub­section (2)”
49

45. A   combined   reading   of   Sections   68(6),   86,   90   and   93   goes   to
show   that   the   bar   of   jurisdiction   under   Section   85   does   not   apply   at
least to the following matters, covered by Sections 68(6), 86 and 90 :
(i) Whenever   a   District   Magistrate   passes   an   order   directing
the   removed   mutawalli   or   removed   members   of   a   Committee   of
Management   to   deliver   possession   of   the   records,   accounts   and
properties   of   the   waqf,   to   the   successor   or   successor   Committee   of
Management, any person claiming that he has right, title and interest
in   the   properties   specified   in   the   order   so   passed   by   the   Magistrate
can approach a civil court;
(ii) The   Board   itself   may   approach   a   civil   court   either   to   set
aside the sale in execution of a decree of civil court, of an immovable
property  which   is  a  waqf  property,  or   to  set  aside the   transfer  of  any
immovable   property   made   by   the   mutawalli   without   the   sanction   of
the   Board   or   to   recover   possession   of   the   property   so   sold   or
transferred, as the case may be;
(iii) The mutawalli is also empowered to approach the civil court
to   recover   possession   of   any   immovable   property   which   is   a   waqf
property,   but   which   had   been   transferred   by   the   previous   mutawalli
50

without the sanction of the Board  (this is implicit in Section 86);
(iv) A   waqf   property   can   be   brought   to   sale   in   execution   of   a
decree of a civil court or for the recovery of any revenue, cess, rates or
taxes   due   to   the   Government   or   any   local   authority,   but   such   a
proceeding will be void if no notice thereof is given to the Board [ this is
implicit in Sections 90(2) & (3) ].
46. Thus  the   Act   itself   has  created  some   confusion,   leaving   the   rest
to the courts to compound the conundrum. Sadly, the Amendment Act
27 of 2013 also did not address the problem fully.
The case on hand
47. Having  thus seen the statutory scheme, including the confusion
created seemingly or schemingly, let us now come back to the facts of
the   case   on   hand.   As   we   have   seen   in   paragraph   3   above,   the   1 st
respondent herein filed a suit on the file of a civil court praying for the 
following reliefs:­
(i) A mandatory  injunction directing the defendants to remove
the   door   and   encroachment   made   by   them   behind   the   shops   of   the
plaintiff and to repair the broken back wall of the plaintiff’s shop; and 
51

(ii) A   perpetual   injunction   restraining   the   defendants   from
interfering   with   the   plaintiff’s   possession   of   the   property   described
therein.
48. Defendant   No.1   who   is   the   appellant   herein   filed   a   written
statement,   admitting   that   Khasra   Plot   No.135/3   in   respect   of   which
perpetual   injunction   was   sought,   was   the   property   of   Mirza   Abid   Ali
Beg   and   that   it   is   a   waqf   property,   of   which   Riyaz   Ahmad   was   the
mutawalli.
49. After admitting the property to be a waqf property, the appellant
herein   (defendant  no.1)   filed   an  application   under   Order  VII,   Rule   11
on the sole ground that a suit for injunction could be filed only before
the Waqf Tribunal. This application for rejection of plaint was allowed
by   the   Trial   Court   and   the   suit   was   dismissed.   The   first   appellate
court confirmed the same but on a second appeal, the High Court set
aside   the   judgments   of   the   Trial   Court   and   the   first   appellate   court
with a direction to the Civil Court to proceed in accordance with law.
The   reasoning   of   the   High   Court   was   that   there   was   no   dispute   with
regard   to   the   property   being   a   waqf   property   or   the   nature   of   the
property   and   that   therefore   Civil   Court   will   have   jurisdiction.
52

Curiously   the   High   Court   referred   to   the   decisions   in   Ramesh
Gobindram   and   Anis   Fatma   Begum,   but   held   that   all   those   decisions
relied upon by the learned counsel for the Respondents were not fully
applicable to the facts of the present case.
50. The approach of the High Court, in our considered view, is not in
tune   with   the   law.   The   question   as   to   whether   the   suit   for   perpetual
injunction is maintainable before the Waqf Tribunal or not, is already
answered in  Akkode Jumayath Palli Paripalana Committee .  This Court,
pointed   out   in   the   said   decision   that   Ramesh   Gobindram   was
distinguished   in   Anis   Fatma   Begum ,   and   that   therefore   the   Tribunal
had   jurisdiction   to   entertain   a   suit   for   perpetual   injunction.   But
unfortunately,   this   decision   rendered   by   this   Court   on   23.07.2013
does not appear to have been brought to the notice of the High Court.
51. It is true that in  Punjab Waqf Board  vs.  Sham Singh Harike , a two
member   bench   of   this   Court   considered   Ramesh   Gobindram,   Anis
Fatma Begum    as well as  Akkode Jumayath Palli Paripalana Committee
and doubted in paragraph 43 (of the SCC report) the correctness of the
decision   in   Akkode   Jumayath   Palli   Paripalana   Committee   on   the
ground that it was not in accord with the ratio of   Ramesh Gobindram .
53

But   the   said   conclusion   was   on   the   basis   of   the   observations   in
Ramesh Gobindram   to the effect  that unless there is any  provision  in
the   Waqf   Act   to   entertain   the   dispute,   the   Tribunal   cannot   have
jurisdiction.   The   relevant   portion   of   Paragraph   43   of   Sham   Singh
Harike  reads as follows:­
“43 .  The two­Judge Bench of this Court in the above case held the
suit   to   be   maintainable   in   the   Waqf   Tribunal   and   noted   that   the
ratio   of   Ramesh   Gobindram   [ Ramesh   Gobindram   v.   Sugra
Humayun Mirza Waqf , (2010) 8 SCC 726 : (2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 553]
has   been   distinguished   in   Anis   Fatma   case   [ W.B.   Waqf
Board   v.   Anis   Fatma   Begum ,   (2010)   14   SCC   588   :   (2012)   1   SCC
(Civ)   773].   But   as   per   ratio   of   Ramesh   Gobindram   [ Ramesh
Gobindram   v.   Sugra   Humayun   Mirza   Waqf ,   (2010)   8   SCC   726   :
(2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 553] unless there is any provision in the Waqf
Act,   1995   to   entertain   the   said   dispute   only   then   the   Waqf
Tribunal   has   jurisdiction,   the   suit   filed   for   injunction   was   not
maintainable   in   the   above   case.   Thus,   what   is   held   in   the   above
judgment  by  the  two­Judge  Bench  is   not  in  accord  with   the  ratio
of   Ramesh   Gobindram   [ Ramesh   Gobindram   v.   Sugra   Humayun
Mirza Waqf , (2010) 8 SCC 726 : (2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 553] .”
52. We   have   already   seen   that   it   is   not   as   though   there   was   no
provision in the Waqf Act conferring jurisdiction upon the Tribunal in
respect of the waqf property. We can break the first part of Section 83
into two limbs, the first concerning  the determination of any  dispute,
question or other matter relating to a waqf and the second, concerning
the determination of any dispute, question or other matter relating to
a waqf property. After Amendment Act 27 of 2013, even the eviction of
a tenant or determination of the rights and obligation of the lessor and
54

lessee   of   such   property,   come   within   the   purview   of   the   Tribunal.
Though  the  proceedings  out   of  which  the   present  appeal  arises,  were
instituted before the Amendment Act, the words “ any dispute, question
or   other   matter   relating   to   a   waqf   or   waqf   property ”   are   sufficient   to
cover   any   dispute,   question   or   other   matter   relating   to   a   waqf
property.   This   is   why   Ramesh   Gobindram   was   sought   to   be
distinguished  both  in   Anis   Fatma  Begum   and  Pritpal  Singh  and  such
distinction   was   taken   note   of   in   Akkode   Jumayath   Palli   Paripalana
Committee .  Additionally,   this Court in  Kiran Devi,  refused to apply the
ratio of  Ramesh Gobindram,  on the ground that the suit was originally
instituted before the Civil Court, but was later transferred to the Waqf
Tribunal and that after allowing the order of transfer to attain finality,
it   was   not   open   to   them   to   resurrect   the   issue   through   Ramesh
Gobindram .
53. It is well settled that the court cannot do violence to the express
language   of   the   statute.   Section   83(1)   even   as   it   stood   before   the
amendment,   provided   for   the   determination   by   the   Tribunal,   of   any
dispute, question or other matter  (i)  relating to a waqf; and  (ii)  relating
to   a   waqf   property.   Therefore   to   say   that   the   Tribunal   will   have
55

jurisdiction   only   if   the   subject   property   is   disputed   to   be   a   waqf
property and not if it is admitted to be a waqf property, is indigestible
in the teeth of Section 83(1).
54. In fact, Section 83(5) of the Act makes it clear that the Tribunal
shall be deemed to be a Civil Court and shall have the same powers as
may be exercised by a Civil Court under the CPC, while trying a suit or
executing   a   decree   or   order.   This   is   why   this   Court   held   in   Syed
Mohideen   and   Another   vs.   Ramanathapura   Peria   Mogallam
Jamath and Others 5
  that the Waqf Tribunal will have power to issue
temporary injunctions under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 CPC.
55. We   must   also   point   out   at   this   stage   that   all   the   14   decisions
which   we   have   tabulated   in   paragraph   13   above,   except   the   one   at
Sl.No.13,   namely   Kiran   Devi   vs.   Bihar   State   Sunni   Waqf   Board 6
,
are decisions  of two  member   benches.   Kiran Devi   was a  decision  of  a
three   member   bench   of   this   Court.   In   Kiran   Devi,   an   objection  to   the
maintainability of the proceeding before the Waqf Tribunal was raised
on   the   basis   of   the   decision   in   Ramesh   Gobindram.   But   this   court
refused   to   accept   it   on   the   ground   that   once   the   order   of   transfer   of
5   (2010) 13 SCC 62
6    2021 SCC Online SC 280
56

the   suit   from   the   Civil   Court   to   the   Waqf   Tribunal   had   attained
finality, the question of jurisdiction cannot be raised. If Waqf tribunal
had no jurisdiction at all, this court could not have held in   Kiran Devi
that   the   order   of   transfer   already   passed   cannot   be   undone   by
accepting this plea. The decision of the three member bench in   Kiran
Devi  is significant in the sense that it recognized the fact that  Ramesh
Gobindram   cannot   be   used   as   a   magic   wand   to   toss   the   proceedings
relating to a waqf property from one forum to another. The dichotomy
created in some decisions of this court, between the properties which
are admitted to be waqf properties and properties which are disputed
to   be   so,   is   on   account   of   the   misapplication   of   the   two   limited
questions   in   Sections   6(1)   and   7(1)   to   the   whole   of   the   Act   including
section   83.  At  the  cost  of   repetition   we should  point   out  that  Section
83(1)   provides   for   the   determination   of   any   dispute,   question   or   any
other matter,   (i)   relating to a waqf and   (ii)   relating to a waqf property.
This   prescription   cannot   be   taken   to   have   been   curtailed   or
circumscribed   by   Sections   6(1)   and   7(1),   to   come   to   the   conclusion
that   the   Tribunal   will   assume   jurisdiction   only   when   a   property   is
disputed to be a waqf property.
56. In   the   case   on   hand,   the   property   is   admitted   to   be   a   waqf
57

property.   Therefore,   to   allow   the   plaintiff   to   ignore   the   Waqf   Tribunal
and   to   seek   a   decree   of   permanent   injunction   and   mandatory
injunction  from  a  civil  court,  would  be ignore  the  mandate  of  section
83   and   85   which   speak   of   any   dispute,   question   or   other   matter
relating to a waqf or a waqf property. There is also one more issue. In
the written statement, the Defendant No.1 has admitted the existence
of the waqf and also admitted that the father of the plaintiff by name
Riyaz Ahmad is the mutawalli. But the claim of the plaintiff that he is
the  beneficiary  of  the  waqf has  been denied. Therefore,  a question as
to  the nature of the  waqf  and whether  the  plaintiff  is a beneficiary  of
the waqf, has also arisen in this case. This question has necessarily to
be decided by the Tribunal and not the civil court.
57. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and
decree of the High Court are set aside. The trial court shall return the
plaint   to   the   plaintiff,   for   presentation   to   the   jurisdictional   Waqf
Tribunal.   Since   pleadings   are   complete,   the   Waqf   Tribunal   shall
proceed   from   the   stage   of   framing   of   issues   and   dispose   of   the   suit
within a period of 6 months.  There will no order as to costs.
58

… ..…………....................J.
      (Hemant Gupta)
.…..………...................... J.
(V. Ramasubramanian)
New Delhi
October 28, 2021
59