The Supreme Court on Tuesday (27 January 2026) delivered an important ruling clarifying when a Waqf Tribunal can hear disputes involving religious properties. The judgment came while deciding a long-running dispute over an alleged mosque inside a residential apartment complex, raising key questions about jurisdiction under the Waqf Act, 1995.
A Bench led by Justice K. Vinod Chandran examined whether a civil suit seeking protection of prayer rights could be entertained by a Waqf Tribunal when the property was not formally registered as waqf.
Read also:- Supreme Court Restores Rail Project Land Compensation, Sets Aside High Court’s Blanket Cancellation
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from a residential apartment complex developed on private land in 2008. The respondent claimed that a portion of the ground floor had been used as a mosque for prayers by the local Muslim community for several years.
According to the plaintiff, access to the prayer area was later obstructed, prompting him to file a suit seeking a permanent injunction to prevent interference with religious activities.
The property owner challenged the suit, arguing that:
- The structure was never declared a mosque
- It was not registered as waqf property
- It was not listed in the official “List of Auqaf”
- The Waqf Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the case
An application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code was dismissed by the trial court and later by the High Court, which held that the property could qualify as a “waqf by user”.
The matter then reached the Supreme Court.
Key Legal Question Before the Court
The central issue before the Court was:
Can a Waqf Tribunal decide disputes relating to a property that is not registered as waqf or included in the official list of waqfs?
The case also required the Court to examine conflicting past rulings on the scope of Section 83 of the Waqf Act.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court undertook a detailed examination of earlier judgments, including Ramesh Gobindram v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf, Anis Fatma Begum, and Rashid Wali Beg.
The Bench observed:
“The jurisdiction of the Waqf Tribunal is not unlimited. It can only decide matters which the Act expressly requires it to determine.”
The Court clarified that:
- The Waqf Tribunal can decide disputes only if the property is included in the list of waqfs or registered under the Act
- Mere usage of a place for prayers does not automatically make it a waqf
- Claims of “waqf by user” must meet strict legal standards
- Civil courts retain jurisdiction where the property is not officially recognized as waqf
The judges further noted that Section 83 of the Act does not give blanket power to tribunals over all religious disputes.
“Section 83 does not enlarge the Tribunal’s jurisdiction beyond what is specifically provided under the Act,” the Bench observed.
Read also:- Customary Law Can’t Bar Widow’s Property Rights, Says Punjab & Haryana High Court
On Conflicting Earlier Judgments
The Court carefully examined earlier rulings that had expanded the Tribunal’s powers and clarified that some of them were wrongly interpreted.
It reaffirmed that:
- Jurisdiction under Sections 6 and 7 applies only to properties listed as waqf
- The 2013 amendment does not give retrospective power over unregistered properties
- Civil courts continue to have authority where waqf status itself is disputed
The Bench emphasized that expanding tribunal powers without statutory backing would undermine settled principles of civil jurisdiction.
Read also:- Supreme Court Refuses to Halt Labour Case, Clears Conciliation Without Demand Notice
Final Decision
After examining the pleadings and law, the Supreme Court held that:
- The property in question was not established as waqf property
- The Waqf Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit
- The plaint seeking injunction could not proceed before the Tribunal
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and ruled that the dispute could not be tried under the Waqf Act.
The judgment settles an important legal question on the limits of Waqf Tribunal authority and reinforces the role of civil courts in property disputes where waqf status is not legally established.
Case Title: Habib Alladin & Ors. v. Mohammed Ahmed
Case No.: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 2937 of 2022
Decision Date: 28 January 2026
