Legal Review and Analysis of Habib Alladin & Ors vs Mohammed Ahmed 2026 INSC 90
Synopsis
This judgment of the Supreme Court of India definitively settles a significant and previously conflicting line of jurisprudence regarding the jurisdictional ambit of the Tribunal established under the Waqf Act, 1995. The core legal question revolved around whether the Waqf Tribunal has the authority to entertain disputes, particularly for injunctive relief, concerning a property whose status as a 'waqf' has not been formally established through inclusion in the statutory 'list of auqaf' or by registration. The Court, affirming and clarifying the principles laid down in Ramesh Gobindram, held that the Tribunal's jurisdiction to determine whether a property is a waqf property is confined exclusively to those properties already specified in the official 'list of auqaf'. Consequently, a suit seeking a simple injunction, where the property's waqf status itself is disputed and it is not on the list, must be rejected by the Tribunal for lack of jurisdiction and can only be pursued before a civil court.
1. Basic Information of the Judgment
Case Title: Habib Alladin & Ors. vs. Mohammed Ahmed
Citation: 2026 INSC 90
Court: Supreme Court of India
Jurisdiction: Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. of 2026 (@Special Leave Petition (C) No.2937 of 2022)
Coram: Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Bench Composition: Division Bench (Two-Judge Bench)
Date of Judgment: January 28, 2026
2. Legal Framework and Context
This judgment is an authoritative interpretation of the Waqf Act, 1995, specifically concerning the jurisdiction of the Waqf Tribunal versus that of the Civil Court.
Primary Legislation: The Waqf Act, 1995 (as amended by Act 27 of 2013).
Key Provisions Interpreted:
Section 3(r): Definition of 'waqf', including 'waqf by user' [3(r)(i)].
Sections 4, 5 & 37: Processes for survey, publication of the 'list of auqaf', and registration of waqfs.
Sections 6 & 7: Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to determine if a property specified in the 'list of auqaf' is a waqf property or whether it is a Shia/Sunni waqf. Section 6(5) bars civil court jurisdiction over these specific questions.
Section 83: Provision for the constitution of the Tribunal "for the determination of any dispute, question or other matter relating to a waqf or waqf property under this Act".
Section 85: Bar of jurisdiction of civil courts "in respect of any dispute, question or other matter... which is required by or under this Act to be determined by a Tribunal."
Section 54 (Post-2013): Power of the Tribunal, on application by the Chief Executive Officer, to remove encroachers (including tenants whose terms have expired).Key Precedents Discussed and Resolved:
Ramesh Gobindram vs. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf (2010): The foundational case which held that the Tribunal's jurisdiction under Sections 6 & 7 is confined to properties in the notified list, and Section 83 does not independently confer a wider jurisdiction.
Anis Fatma Begum (2010) & P.V. Ibrahim Haji (2014): Took a divergent, expansive view, interpreting Section 83 as conferring wide jurisdiction on the Tribunal over any dispute relating to a waqf.
Rashid Wali Beg vs. Farid Pindari (2021): Held that the 2013 Amendment removed the basis of Ramesh Gobindram and that Section 83 independently conferred wide jurisdiction.
Bhanwar Lal, Mahesh Kumar, Sham Singh Harike: Followed and reaffirmed the principles in Ramesh Gobindram.
3. Relevant Facts of the Case
The respondent (Mohammed Ahmed) filed a suit before the Waqf Tribunal seeking a perpetual injunction against the appellants (property owners) from obstructing the ingress to and offering of prayers in a premises claimed to be a mosque within a residential apartment complex. He claimed it was a 'waqf by user' established in 2008. The appellants contested the very existence of a mosque/waqf and filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint, arguing that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction as the property was neither included in the notified 'list of auqaf' nor registered under the Act. The Tribunal and the High Court dismissed this application, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.
4. Issues Before the Court
Whether the Waqf Tribunal has the jurisdiction to entertain a suit, particularly for injunction simpliciter, in respect of a property which is not specified in the 'list of auqaf' published under Section 5(2) or registered under Section 37 of the Waqf Act, 1995?
What is the true scope and interpretation of Section 83 of the Waqf Act, 1995, in conferring jurisdiction upon the Tribunal, especially in light of conflicting judgments of coordinate benches?
Whether the Amendment Act of 2013 altered the jurisdictional landscape established by Ramesh Gobindram?
5. Ratio Decidendi (Court's Reasoning and Decision)
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and rejected the plaint. Its core reasoning is as follows:
Affirmation of Ramesh Gobindram: The Court authoritatively reaffirmed the principles laid down in Ramesh Gobindram. It held that the Tribunal's jurisdiction to decide the question "whether a particular property is a waqf property or not" under Sections 6(1) and 7(1) is activated only if the property is already specified in the 'list of auqaf' (which, post-2013, includes both the published list and the register of auqaf).
Limited Role of Section 83: The Court decisively held that Section 83 is not an independent source of wide jurisdiction. It is merely an enabling provision for the constitution of the Tribunal. The phrase "under this Act" in Section 83(1) tethers its scope to the specific jurisdictions conferred elsewhere in the statute. It does not allow the Tribunal to assume jurisdiction over properties whose waqf status is in limine and not on the statutory list.
Interpretation of the 2013 Amendment: The Court clarified that the 2013 Amendment, which substituted the definition of 'list of auqaf' (Section 3(g)) to include registered properties and added words on eviction in Section 83(1), was clarificatory and procedural. It did not create a new, expansive jurisdictional base under Section 83.
The power to evict tenants/encroachers was specifically conferred by the new Section 54, not by a widened Section 83.
The amendment only removed the sub-stratum of Ramesh Gobindram concerning eviction of tenants from admitted waqf properties, but left its core jurisdictional principle untouched.Resolution of Conflict: The Court held that the expansive interpretation of Section 83 in Anis Fatma Begum and Rashid Wali Beg was incorrect and issued per incuriam for not dealing with the binding reasoning in Ramesh Gobindram. The correct legal position is that declared in Ramesh Gobindram.
Application to Facts: Since the suit property was not in the 'list of auqaf', the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for injunction, which inherently required a determination of waqf status. The plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11.
6. Legal Framework Established
This judgment establishes a clear and strict jurisdictional framework:
Two-Stage Process: For a dispute to be within the Waqf Tribunal's jurisdiction, the property must first cross the threshold of being listed/registered as a waqf. The Tribunal is the forum to confirm or deny that listed status, not to establish it in the first instance.
Civil Court as Primary Forum for Unlisted Properties: Disputes regarding properties not yet on the statutory list, including claims of 'waqf by user', must be initiated before a civil court. The civil court's jurisdiction is ousted only for those matters expressly required by the Act to be decided by the Tribunal.
Section 83 is Not an Omnibus Provision: It cannot be invoked to bypass the fundamental requirement of listing/registration for triggering the Tribunal's jurisdiction under Sections 6 and 7.
7. Judicial Examination and Analysis
The Court engaged in a meticulous analysis:
Doctrinal Analysis: It dissected the scheme of the 1995 Act, explaining the interplay between Chapters II (Survey), V (Registration), and VII (Tribunal). It emphasized that the finality of the Tribunal's decision under Section 6(1) logically applies only to properties already subjected to the Act's processes via listing.
Precedent Analysis (Doctrine of Stare Decisis): The Court performed a detailed survey of conflicting precedents. It critically examined Anis Fatma Begum and Rashid Wali Beg, finding their broad readings of Section 83 to be unsustainable and in conflict with the earlier, well-reasoned Ramesh Gobindram. It applied the principle that a coordinate bench disagreeing with another should refer the matter to a larger bench.
Amendment Analysis: The Court interpreted the 2013 amendments purposively, distinguishing between substantive and procedural changes. It held that the expansion of the definition of 'list' was a procedural clarification to include registered properties, not a substantive expansion of jurisdiction ab initio.
8. Critical Analysis and Final Outcome
Clarity and Doctinal Stability: The judgment provides much-needed clarity and settles a long-standing conflict, reinforcing legal certainty. It correctly prioritizes the schematic interpretation of the statute over isolated, broad readings of single sections.
Procedural Safeguard: It acts as a check against frivolous or strategic claims of waqf status being used to drag parties before the specialized Tribunal, ensuring that the Tribunal's docket is reserved for disputes concerning properties already within the regulatory fold of the Waqf Board.
Potential Procedural Hurdle: It may render the process for establishing a 'waqf by user' more cumbersome, requiring a civil court decree first, before the property can be listed and future disputes routed to the Tribunal.
Final Outcome: The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the High Court and the Tribunal. It allowed the appellants' application and rejected the plaint filed before the Waqf Tribunal. The question of whether the property is a waqf by user was left open to be agitated in a civil court of competent jurisdiction.
(MCQs)
1. As per the Supreme Court's ruling in Habib Alladin, the jurisdiction of the Waqf Tribunal to determine if a property is a waqf property is triggered only when?
a) A party files a suit claiming it to be a waqf by user.
b) The property is used for religious purposes by the public.
c) The property is specified in the statutory 'list of auqaf' (published or registered).
d) The Chief Executive Officer of the Waqf Board files an application.
2. The Supreme Court interpreted the phrase "under this Act" in Section 83(1) of the Waqf Act, 1995 to mean that?
a) The Tribunal can decide any matter related to Islamic religious properties.
b) The Tribunal's power under Section 83 is independent and very wide.
c) The Tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 83 is limited to matters specifically provided for elsewhere in the Act.
d) It grants the Tribunal powers equivalent to a civil court.
3. What was the Supreme Court's view on the effect of the 2013 Amendment on the precedent set in Ramesh Gobindram?
a) It completely overruled Ramesh Gobindram.
b) It removed the basis of Ramesh Gobindram only regarding the Tribunal's power to evict tenants from admitted waqf properties.
c) It made the expansive view in Anis Fatma Begum the correct law.
d) It had no bearing on the jurisdictional principles.
4. In the present case, why did the Supreme Court hold that the plaint before the Waqf Tribunal was not maintainable?
a) Because the appellants were the true owners.
b) Because the claim of 'waqf by user' was found to be false.
c) Because the property was not included in the 'list of auqaf', a prerequisite for the Tribunal's jurisdiction.
d) Because an injunction cannot be granted by the Tribunal.