Date of the Judgment: 07 February 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 79
Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J. and K.M. Joseph, J.
Can a Wakf Tribunal decide on cases where the core issue is whether a property is a Wakf property or not? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving the Punjab Wakf Board, clarifying the extent of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. This judgment is significant for understanding which court has the authority to hear disputes related to Wakf properties. The Supreme Court bench, consisting of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice K.M. Joseph, delivered this judgment.
Case Background
The cases involve the Punjab Wakf Board and two separate respondents, Sham Singh Harike and Teja Singh, concerning disputes over land ownership and possession. The Board claimed ownership of certain lands, which it had leased out for cultivation. However, the lessees later challenged the Board’s title, leading to litigation.
In the case of Punjab Wakf Board vs. Sham Singh Harike, the Board claimed ownership of land measuring 269 kanals 7 marlas in village Birmi, Ludhiana. The Board had leased this land to Sham Singh and his wife for cultivation. After some years, Sham Singh initiated litigation against the Board, which was decided in favor of the Board. The Board then filed a civil suit in 2001 to restrain Sham Singh from constructing on the land or changing its nature from agricultural to residential. Sham Singh challenged the suit’s maintainability and denied the Board’s title. The case was later transferred to the Wakf Tribunal.
In the case of Punjab Wakf Board vs. Teja Singh, the Board claimed ownership of land measuring 29 kanals 9 marlas. The Board stated that Teja Singh had leased the property until 1996-97, after which the lease was not renewed. The Board cancelled the lease on 05.12.1998 due to alleged illegalities and requested Teja Singh to vacate the property. Teja Singh had also filed a suit against the Board, which was decided in his favor, restraining the Board from forcibly dispossessing him. The Board then filed a suit for possession and a permanent injunction in the Wakf Tribunal.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1967 | Sham Singh Harike claims to be in possession of the property. |
| 1970 | Property verified as Wakf property without notice to the Central Government. |
| 1972 | Punjab Wakf Board leases land to Sham Singh and his wife for cultivation. |
| 1996-97 | Teja Singh’s lease with the Punjab Wakf Board was not renewed. |
| 05.12.1998 | Punjab Wakf Board cancels Teja Singh’s lease. |
| 1999 | Teja Singh files a suit against the Punjab Wakf Board which is decreed. |
| 2001 | Punjab Wakf Board files Civil Suit No. 250 against Sham Singh. |
| 2006 | Civil Suit No. 250 of 2001 is transferred to Wakf Tribunal and renumbered as RBT No.84/2006. |
| 2007 | Punjab Wakf Board files Suit No.2 of 2007 against Teja Singh in the Wakf Tribunal. |
| 17.04.2009 | Wakf Tribunal rejects Sham Singh’s application for rejection of the plaint. |
| 03.06.2009 | Wakf Tribunal decrees Punjab Wakf Board’s suit against Teja Singh. |
| 20.09.2010 | Punjab and Haryana High Court allows Sham Singh’s civil revision, stating Wakf Tribunal has no jurisdiction. |
| 23.02.2011 | Punjab and Haryana High Court allows Teja Singh’s civil revision, stating Wakf Tribunal has no jurisdiction. |
| 13.09.2013 | Supreme Court sets aside a similar order of Punjab and Haryana High Court in a case of Punjab Wakf Board vs. Pritpal Singh & Anr. |
| 07.02.2019 | Supreme Court delivers judgment in the appeals. |
Course of Proceedings
In the case of Sham Singh Harike, the Wakf Tribunal rejected Sham Singh’s application to reject the plaint, holding that it had jurisdiction. The High Court, however, reversed this decision, relying on the judgment in Ramesh Gobindram (dead) through LRs. vs. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf, (2010) 8 SCC 726, stating that since Sham Singh is a non-Muslim, the Wakf Tribunal had no jurisdiction, and only a Civil Court could hear the dispute.
In the case of Teja Singh, the Wakf Tribunal decreed the suit in favor of the Punjab Wakf Board. The High Court, however, allowed Teja Singh’s revision petition, citing the same Ramesh Gobindram judgment, and directed that the plaint be returned to be presented in the appropriate court (Civil Court).
Legal Framework
The core of this case revolves around the interpretation of the Wakf Act, specifically the jurisdiction of Wakf Tribunals. The Wakf Act, 1954 was amended in 1984 to include provisions for tribunals to handle disputes related to Wakf properties. However, many provisions of the 1984 amendment could not be enforced. The Wakf Act, 1995 was then enacted, which also included provisions for Wakf Tribunals. The relevant sections are:
- Section 55 of the Wakf Act, 1954 (prior to 1984 Amendment): This section dealt with the institution of suits related to Wakfs under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It stated that the Board could institute such suits without obtaining consent.
- Section 55 of the Wakf Act, 1954 (after 1984 Amendment): This section provided for the constitution of tribunals for the determination of any dispute, question, or other matter relating to a Wakf property. It also outlined the powers and jurisdiction of these tribunals.
- Section 55C of the Wakf Act, 1954: This section barred the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in respect of matters determined by the Tribunal.
- Section 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995: This section deals with the constitution of Wakf Tribunals by the State Government to determine disputes, questions, or other matters relating to a Wakf or Wakf property. It also specifies who can apply to the Tribunal and the Tribunal’s powers.
- Section 85 of the Wakf Act, 1995: This section bars the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in respect of any dispute, question, or other matter relating to a Wakf or Wakf property that is required to be determined by a Tribunal under the Act.
- Section 6(1) of the Wakf Act, 1995: This section deals with the question of whether a property is a Wakf property or not. It allows the Board, mutawalli, or any person interested to institute a suit in a Tribunal for the decision of the question. It also has a proviso 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 wakfs.
- Section 7(1) of the Wakf Act, 1995: This section is similar to Section 6(1) and deals with questions arising after the commencement of the Act regarding whether a property is a Wakf property or not.
- Section 33(4) of the Wakf Act, 1995: This section provides for an appeal to the Tribunal against orders passed under Section 33.
- Section 51(5) of the Wakf Act, 1995: This section also provides for an appeal to the Tribunal.
- Section 52(4) of the Wakf Act, 1995: This section also provides for an appeal to the Tribunal.
- Section 54(4) of the Wakf Act, 1995: This section allows any person aggrieved by an order of the Chief Executive Officer to institute a suit in a Tribunal to establish their right, title, or interest in the property.
The Supreme Court needed to determine whether the disputes in these cases fell within the jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal or whether they should be heard by a Civil Court.
Arguments
Appellant (Punjab Wakf Board) Arguments:
- The Wakf Tribunal was fully competent to entertain the suits filed by the Board as the defendants were lessees of Wakf property.
- The Wakf Act, 1954, as amended in 1984, and the Wakf Act, 1995, clearly established that disputes pertaining to Wakf properties should be filed before the Tribunal, barring the jurisdiction of Civil Courts.
- The judgment of Ramesh Gobindram (supra), relied upon by the High Court, was a case under the 1954 Act prior to the 1984 amendment and is not applicable to the present cases.
- The suits filed by the Board were for possession, which is maintainable before the Wakf Tribunal.
- The Supreme Court’s judgment in Board of Wakf, West Bengal & another vs. Anis Fatma Begum & another, (2010) 14 SCC 588, held that suits filed before the Tribunal are maintainable.
- The Supreme Court’s order in Punjab Wakf Board vs. Pritpal Singh & Anr. (C.A. No. 8194 of 2013), set aside a similar order by the High Court, holding that the suit of the Punjab Wakf Board is maintainable.
Respondent (Sham Singh Harike) Arguments:
- The judgment in Anis Fatma Begum (supra) does not overrule Ramesh Gobindram.
- Sham Singh has been in possession of the property since 1967.
- The property was notified as Wakf property in 1970 without notice to the Central Government.
- The Punjab Wakf Board got the suit land notified as Wakf property without serving any notice on Sham Singh.
- The title of the Wakf Board is disputed.
- The suit filed by the Board was not maintainable before the Wakf Tribunal, and hence, the application under Order VII Rule 10 and 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for rejecting the plaint was filed.
- Sham Singh and others have also filed a suit in the Civil Court seeking a declaration that the suit land is not a Wakf property.
Respondent (Teja Singh) Arguments:
- Teja Singh had filed a suit that was decreed by the Civil Judge restraining the Board from dispossessing him forcibly subject to payment of dues.
- The appeal filed by the Punjab Wakf Board against the decree was also dismissed.
- The judgment in Ramesh Gobindram supports the argument that the suit filed by the Board was not maintainable before the Wakf Tribunal.
Submissions Table
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions (Appellant – Punjab Wakf Board) | Sub-Submissions (Respondent – Sham Singh Harike) | Sub-Submissions (Respondent – Teja Singh) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction of Wakf Tribunal |
|
|
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The main issue before the Supreme Court was:
- Whether the suit filed by the appellant before the Wakf Tribunal praying for a decree of possession of the suit property was maintainable in the Wakf Tribunal or would lie only in a Civil Court.
The court also considered the sub-issue of whether a suit under Section 6(1) or 7(1) of the Wakf Act, 1995, must be filed within one year of the publication of the list of Wakfs.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision and Reasoning |
|---|---|
| Whether the suit for possession was maintainable before the Wakf Tribunal or a Civil Court. | The Court held that if the core issue in the suit is whether the property is a Wakf property or not, then the Wakf Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the same. The bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court is confined only to those matters which are required to be determined by the Tribunal under the Wakf Act, 1995. In Punjab Wakf Board vs. Sham Singh Harike, the respondent had specifically denied that the property is a Wakf property. Thus, the issue was to be decided by the Tribunal. However, in Punjab Wakf Board vs. Teja Singh, the issue was not whether the property was a Wakf property or not, but rather whether the lease was validly terminated, which is not a matter required to be decided by the Tribunal under the Act. |
| Whether a suit under Section 6(1) or 7(1) of the Wakf Act, 1995, must be filed within one year of the publication of the list of Wakfs. | The Court clarified that the one-year limitation applies to every person who wants to dispute the list except those who have not been served a notice under Section 4(1) of the Wakf Act, 1995. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | Legal Point | How it was used by the Court |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ramesh Gobindram (dead) through LRs. vs. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf, (2010) 8 SCC 726 | Supreme Court of India | Jurisdiction of Wakf Tribunal | The Court distinguished this case, noting that it dealt with eviction of a tenant, which is not a matter to be decided by the Tribunal. The Court clarified that the jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal is limited to matters that the Act requires it to determine. |
| Board of Wakf, West Bengal & another vs. Anis Fatma Begum & another, (2010) 14 SCC 588 | Supreme Court of India | Jurisdiction of Wakf Tribunal | The Court relied on this case, which held that the Wakf Tribunal can decide all disputes relating to a Wakf or Wakf property. The Court noted that this case distinguished Ramesh Gobindram. |
| Bhanwar Lal and another vs. Rajasthan Board of Muslim Wakf and others, (2014) 16 SCC 51 | Supreme Court of India | Jurisdiction of Wakf Tribunal | The Court referred to this case which discussed the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and Civil Court in cases where some reliefs fall under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and some under Civil Court. |
| Faseela M. vs. Munnerul Islam Madrasa Committee and another, (2014) 16 SCC 38 | Supreme Court of India | Jurisdiction of Wakf Tribunal | The Court referred to this case which held that a suit for eviction against a tenant relating to a Wakf property is exclusively triable by the Civil Court. |
| Haryana Wakf Board vs. Mahesh Kumar, (2014) 16 SCC 45 | Supreme Court of India | Jurisdiction of Wakf Tribunal | The Court relied on this case, which held that if there is a dispute about whether the suit property is a Wakf property or not, the Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to decide the same. |
| Akkode Jumayath Palli Paripalana Committee vs. P.V. Ibrahim Haji and others, (2014) 16 SCC 65 | Supreme Court of India | Jurisdiction of Wakf Tribunal | The Court referred to this case, which held that the Wakf Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for injunction restraining interference with the management of a mosque and madarsa. |
| Punjab Wakf Board vs. Pritpal Singh & Anr.(Civil Appeal No.8194 of 2013) | Supreme Court of India | Jurisdiction of Wakf Tribunal | The Court relied on this case, which held that the suit filed before the Wakf Tribunal for possession and mesne profits was maintainable. |
| Board of Muslim Wakfs, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan and others, (1979) 2 SCC 468 | Supreme Court of India | Interpretation of Section 6(1) of the Wakf Act, 1954 | The Court discussed this case, which interpreted the term ‘any person interested therein’ in Section 6(1) of the 1954 Act. The Court noted that this interpretation was later modified by an amendment and is not applicable to the present cases. |
| Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat, (2000) (2) SCC 121 | Supreme Court of India | Interpretation of Section 6(1) of the Wakf Act, 1954 | The Court referred to this case, which interpreted the explanation added to Section 6(1) of the 1954 Act. The Court noted that this interpretation can be applied to the explanation of Section 6(1) of the 1995 Act. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court analyzed the submissions and authorities, and came to the following conclusions:
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| The Wakf Tribunal was fully competent to entertain the suits filed by the Board as the defendants were lessees of Wakf property. | The Court agreed with this submission in the case of Sham Singh Harike, holding that if the core issue is whether the property is Wakf property or not, then the Wakf Tribunal has jurisdiction. However, the court disagreed in the case of Teja Singh, where the issue was not regarding the nature of the property but rather the validity of the lease termination. |
| The Wakf Act, 1954, as amended in 1984, and the Wakf Act, 1995, clearly established that disputes pertaining to Wakf properties should be filed before the Tribunal, barring the jurisdiction of Civil Courts. | The Court agreed with this submission in principle but clarified that the jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal is limited to matters that the Act requires it to determine. |
| The judgment of Ramesh Gobindram (supra), relied upon by the High Court, was a case under the 1954 Act prior to the 1984 amendment and is not applicable to the present cases. | The Court distinguished Ramesh Gobindram, stating that it dealt with eviction of a tenant, which is not a matter to be decided by the Tribunal. |
| The suits filed by the Board were for possession, which is maintainable before the Wakf Tribunal. | The Court agreed with this submission in the case of Sham Singh Harike, as the core issue was whether the property was a Wakf property or not. However, it disagreed in the case of Teja Singh, as the issue was not regarding the nature of the property but rather the validity of the lease termination. |
| The judgment in Anis Fatma Begum (supra) does not overrule Ramesh Gobindram. | The Court noted that while Anis Fatma Begum did not overrule Ramesh Gobindram, its ratio is substantially different from Ramesh Gobindram. |
| Sham Singh has been in possession of the property since 1967. | The Court did not directly address this submission in its judgment. |
| The property was notified as Wakf property in 1970 without notice to the Central Government. | The Court did not directly address this submission in its judgment. |
| The Punjab Wakf Board got the suit land notified as Wakf property without serving any notice on Sham Singh. | The Court noted that the explanation to Section 6(1) of the Wakf Act, 1995, clarifies that any person interested in the property can raise a dispute, even if they are not interested in the Wakf, provided they were given a reasonable opportunity to represent their case. |
| The title of the Wakf Board is disputed. | The Court held that if the core issue is whether the property is a Wakf property or not, then the Wakf Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the same. |
| The suit filed by the Board was not maintainable before the Wakf Tribunal, and hence, the application under Order VII Rule 10 and 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for rejecting the plaint was filed. | The Court agreed with this submission in the case of Teja Singh, but disagreed in the case of Sham Singh Harike. |
| Sham Singh and others have also filed a suit in the Civil Court seeking a declaration that the suit land is not a Wakf property. | The Court did not directly address this submission in its judgment. |
| Teja Singh had filed a suit that was decreed by the Civil Judge restraining the Board from dispossessing him forcibly subject to payment of dues. | The Court did not directly address this submission in its judgment. |
| The judgment in Ramesh Gobindram supports the argument that the suit filed by the Board was not maintainable before the Wakf Tribunal. | The Court agreed with this submission in the case of Teja Singh, but disagreed in the case of Sham Singh Harike. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
| Authority | Court’s View |
|---|---|
| Ramesh Gobindram (dead) through LRs. vs. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf, (2010) 8 SCC 726 | The Court distinguished this case, stating that it dealt with eviction of a tenant, which is not a matter to be decided by the Tribunal under the Wakf Act, 1995. |
| Board of Wakf, West Bengal & another vs. Anis Fatma Begum & another, (2010) 14 SCC 588 | The Court relied on this case, which held that the Wakf Tribunal can decide all disputes relating to a Wakf or Wakf property. The Court noted that this case distinguished Ramesh Gobindram. |
| Bhanwar Lal and another vs. Rajasthan Board of Muslim Wakf and others, (2014) 16 SCC 51 | The Court referred to this case, which discussed the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and Civil Court in cases where some reliefs fall under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and some under Civil Court. |
| Faseela M. vs. Munnerul Islam Madrasa Committee and another, (2014) 16 SCC 38 | The Court referred to this case, which held that a suit for eviction against a tenant relating to a Wakf property is exclusively triable by the Civil Court. |
| Haryana Wakf Board vs. Mahesh Kumar, (2014) 16 SCC 45 | The Court relied on this case, which held that if there is a dispute about whether the suit property is a Wakf property or not, the Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to decide the same. |
| Akkode Jumayath Palli Paripalana Committee vs. P.V. Ibrahim Haji and others, (2014) 16 SCC 65 | The Court referred to this case, which held that the Wakf Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for injunction restraining interference with the management of a mosque and madarsa. |
| Punjab Wakf Board vs. Pritpal Singh & Anr.(Civil Appeal No.8194 of 2013) | The Court relied on this case, which held that the suit filed before the Wakf Tribunal for possession and mesne profits was maintainable. |
| Board of Muslim Wakfs, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan and others, (1979) 2 SCC 468 | The Court discussed this case, which interpreted the term ‘any person interested therein’ in Section 6(1) of the 1954 Act. The Court noted that this interpretation was later modified by an amendment and is not applicable to the present cases. |
| Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat, (2000) (2) SCC 121 | The Court referred to this case, which interpreted the explanation added to Section 6(1) of the 1954 Act. The Court noted that this interpretation can be applied to the explanation of Section 6(1) of the 1995 Act. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s reasoning was primarily driven by the following considerations:
- Statutory Interpretation: The Court emphasized the importance of interpreting the Wakf Act, 1995, specifically Sections 6, 7, 83, and 85, to determine the jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal. The Court focused on the phrase “required by or under this Act tobe determined by a Tribunal.”
- Core Issue of the Dispute: The Court differentiated between cases where the core issue is whether the property is a Wakf property and cases where the issue is related to tenancy or lease agreements. It held that the Wakf Tribunal has jurisdiction when the core issue is the nature of the property.
- Limitation under Section 6(1) and 7(1): The Court clarified that the one-year limitation applies to those who have been served a notice under Section 4(1) of the Wakf Act, 1995, and want to dispute the list of Wakfs.
- Distinction from Ramesh Gobindram: The Court distinguished the judgment in Ramesh Gobindram, emphasizing that it dealt with eviction of a tenant, which is not a matter to be decided by the Tribunal.
- Consistency with Precedents: The Court relied on its previous judgments in Anis Fatma Begum, Haryana Wakf Board vs. Mahesh Kumar, and Punjab Wakf Board vs. Pritpal Singh & Anr. to support its decision.
- Intent of the Wakf Act: The Court noted that the Wakf Act intends to provide a special forum for the resolution of disputes relating to Wakf properties, but only for matters that the Act requires the Tribunal to determine.
The Court’s reasoning shows a clear intention to balance the need for a specialized forum for Wakf disputes with the protection of the rights of individuals who may not be directly involved in the Wakf administration.
Ratio Decidendi
The ratio decidendi of the judgment is as follows:
The Wakf Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide disputes where the core issue is whether a property is a Wakf property or not. The bar on the jurisdiction of Civil Courts under Section 85 of the Wakf Act, 1995, is limited to those matters which are required to be determined by the Tribunal under the Act. If the core issue is not about the nature of the property but about other aspects like lease agreements, then the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction and Civil Courts have jurisdiction.
Final Order
Based on the above reasoning, the Supreme Court passed the following orders:
- In the case of Punjab Wakf Board vs. Sham Singh Harike, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and held that the Wakf Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the case. The matter was remitted to the Wakf Tribunal for a decision on the merits.
- In the case of Punjab Wakf Board vs. Teja Singh, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court’s order that the suit was not maintainable before the Wakf Tribunal. The Court directed that the plaint be returned to the Wakf Board to be presented before the appropriate court (Civil Court).
Flowchart of the Judgment
Ratio Table
| Legal Point | Application to Sham Singh Harike Case | Application to Teja Singh Case |
|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction of Wakf Tribunal | Core issue was whether the property was a Wakf property. Tribunal has jurisdiction. | Core issue was not about the nature of the property but about lease validity. Tribunal has no jurisdiction. |
| Bar on Civil Court Jurisdiction | Not applicable, as the matter was within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. | Applicable, as the matter was not within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. |
Sentiment Table
| Aspect | Sentiment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Interpretation of Wakf Act | Strict and Literal | The Court adhered to the literal wording of the Act, focusing on the phrase “required to be determined by the Tribunal.” |
| Treatment of Ramesh Gobindram | Distinguishing | The Court clearly distinguished this case, clarifying that it did not apply to the present situation. |
| Reliance on Precedents | Consistent | The Court followed its previous judgments, ensuring consistency and clarity in its reasoning. |
| Overall Tone | Balanced and Pragmatic | The Court aimed to balance the need for a specialized forum for Wakf disputes with the rights of individuals. |
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Punjab Wakf Board vs. Sham Singh Harike & Teja Singh (2019) provides a crucial clarification on the jurisdiction of Wakf Tribunals in property disputes. The judgment emphasizes that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to matters that the Wakf Act specifically requires it to determine, particularly disputes about the nature of the property as a Wakf property. This judgment is significant because it clarifies the scope of the Wakf Tribunal’s authority, ensuring that disputes are adjudicated in the appropriate forum. The judgment also highlights the importance of the core issue in a dispute when determining which court has jurisdiction. This ruling will serve as a guiding precedent for future cases involving Wakf properties and will help in streamlining the adjudication process. It also ensures that the rights of individuals are protected, and they are not forced to litigate in a forum that does not have jurisdiction over their case.