In a significant judgment that clarifies the boundaries of religious property disputes in India, the Supreme Court has ruled that a Waqf Tribunal does not have the authority to decide cases involving properties that are neither notified in the official “list of auqaf” nor registered under the Waqf Act, 1995.

A Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran set aside a judgment of the Telangana High Court, which had previously allowed a Waqf Tribunal to grant an injunction regarding an unregistered property.

The Apex Court emphasized that for a Tribunal to step in, the property must first have a formal legal status under the Act. Without such registration or notification, the matter remains within the jurisdiction of ordinary Civil Courts, and the specialized Waqf Tribunal cannot entertain the suit.

The primary question before the Supreme Court was whether the Waqf Tribunal has "limitless" power to decide if any property is a Waqf, or if its powers are restricted only to those properties already recognized by the state’s Waqf records.

The Court observed that under Sections 6(1) and 7(1) of the Waqf Act, 1995, the "mandatory requirement" for approaching a Tribunal is that the property must be specified in the list of auqaf.

“A bare reading of the plaint would indicate that neither is the property specified in the 'list of auqaf'... nor registered under Chapter V. Hence, the decision as to whether the property is a waqf property or not cannot be decided by the Tribunal,” the Court noted.

The legal battle began when a plaintiff (Respondent) approached the Waqf Tribunal seeking a permanent injunction. The claim was unique: the plaintiff argued that a single room within a residential complex had been used for religious purposes since 2008. They contended that through this "long religious use," the room had effectively become a mosque and, therefore, should be treated as Waqf property.

However, there was a major procedural gap. It was undisputed that:

The property was not included in the statutory "list of auqaf" published after a government survey.
The property was not registered under Section 37 of the Waqf Act.

Despite these facts, the Waqf Tribunal took up the case and granted an injunction (a stay order). The Telangana High Court later upheld this decision, prompting the aggrieved party (Habib Alladin & Others) to move the Supreme Court.

The appellants argued a simple point: if the property isn't on the official list, the Tribunal is essentially a "stranger" to the dispute. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that the Tribunal lacked the jurisdiction to even examine whether the room was a Waqf.

This judgment is particularly important because it resolves a long-standing "tug-of-war" between two different interpretations of the law previously offered by the Supreme Court itself.

Interpretation A: The "Expansive" View

In cases like Anis Fatma Begum v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2010) and Rashid Wali Beg v. Farid Pindari (2022), it was suggested that Section 83(1) of the Act gives the Tribunal massive powers. These rulings held that the Tribunal could decide "any dispute" related to Waqf, even if the property wasn't officially listed yet.

Interpretation B: The "Specific" View

In Ramesh Gobindram v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf (2010), the Court had taken a stricter view. It held that the Tribunal is not a substitute for a Civil Court for every single issue; its powers are limited to what is expressly written in the Act.

The Decision: Justice K. Vinod Chandran, authoring the judgment, chose to restore and affirm the "Specific View" (Ramesh Gobindram).

The Court pointed out that previous benches had often misquoted Section 83(1) by focusing only on the words "any dispute... relating to a waqf property" while ignoring the crucial concluding words: "under this Act."

The Court clarified:

“The waqf or waqf properties should thus be having a status under the Act which is possible only by inclusion in the 'list of auqaf'... We hence respectfully affirm the principle of jurisdiction... as considered and declared in Ramesh Gobindram.”

This ruling draws a clear "line in the sand" for lawyers and property owners.

For Waqf Boards: It places a heavy emphasis on the importance of surveys and registrations. If a property is not surveyed under Chapter II or registered under Chapter V of the Act, the Board cannot rely on the specialized (and often faster) Tribunal to settle disputes.
For Private Property Owners: It provides a safeguard. A property cannot be suddenly claimed as Waqf in a Tribunal unless it has gone through the formal statutory process of being listed.
For Civil Courts: Their jurisdiction is restored. Unless a property is officially a "Waqf" under the records, the Civil Court remains the proper forum for disputes, and Section 85 (which bars Civil Courts from Waqf matters) won't apply.

Because the property in question was never registered or notified, the Supreme Court held that the original lawsuit filed in the Tribunal was fundamentally flawed.

Under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), a court/tribunal must reject a "plaint" (the written complaint) if it doesn't have the legal authority to hear it. The Supreme Court applied this rule, set aside the High Court and Tribunal orders, and effectively threw out the case for "want of jurisdiction."

By siding with the Ramesh Gobindram precedent, the Supreme Court has ensured that the Waqf Act is interpreted strictly. The ruling prevents the "automatic" shifting of private property disputes to religious tribunals unless there is documented evidence of the property's status in the state's official Waqf records.

This judgment brings much-needed clarity to the 1995 Act, emphasizing that "religious use" alone isn't a ticket to the Tribunal; formal registration is the key.

Case Details:

Cause Title: Habib Alladin & Ors. Versus Mohammed Ahmed
Court: Supreme Court of India
Date of Judgment: January 28, 2026
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran