Supreme Court Upholds Waqf Board Certificate, Settles Mosque Management Dispute: P. Nazeer vs. Salafi Trust (2022)

Date of the Judgment: March 30, 2022
Citation: 2022 INSC 299
Judges: Hemant Gupta, J., V. Ramasubramanian, J.
Can a local mosque committee claim management rights over a mosque if the land is owned by a registered Waqf Trust? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a dispute between a local Mahal Committee and a registered Waqf Trust, concerning the management of a mosque and its properties. The court upheld the High Court’s decision, favoring the registered trust. The judgment was authored by Justice V. Ramasubramanian.

Case Background

The case involves a dispute over the management of a mosque and its properties between two groups: the Salafi Juma Masjid Mahal Committee (referred to as the ‘Mahal Committee’) and the Salafi Trust. The Mahal Committee claimed that they were managing the mosque, while the Salafi Trust asserted their right to manage the mosque as the registered trust. The dispute led to two cross-suits being filed before the Waqf Tribunal, Kollam.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Waqf Tribunal initially ruled partly in favor of both parties. It rejected the Mahal Committee’s plea to declare the Waqf Board certificate as void but granted them an injunction against the Trust from interfering in the mosque’s management. Conversely, it declared A.K. Babu as the Secretary of the Salafi Trust but rejected the Trust’s plea for an injunction against the Mahal Committee. Aggrieved by this, the Salafi Trust filed revision petitions before the High Court of Kerala. The High Court overturned the Waqf Tribunal’s decision, dismissing the Mahal Committee’s suit and decreeing the Salafi Trust’s suit in full. The Mahal Committee then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the Waqf Act, 1995, specifically Section 36, which deals with the registration of Waqfs. The court also considered the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955, to determine the legal standing of the Mahal Committee. Section 6 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 states that,

“every society registered under the Act may sue or be sued in the name of President, Chairman, or Principal Secretary, or trustees, as shall be determined by the rules and regulations of the society and, in default of such determination, in the name of such person as shall be appointed by the governing body for the occasion”.

Arguments

The Mahal Committee argued that:

• The mosque is a public waqf registered with the Kerala Waqf Board.
• Though the mosque was constructed on land given by the Salafi Trust, the management was with the Mahal Committee.
• As per Waqf laws, the manager of the waqf is the Mutawalli.
• An enquiry by the Waqf Board found that the Mahal Committee managed the mosque.
• The certificate issued by the Chief Executive Officer of the Waqf Board in favor of the Salafi Trust was wrong and should be declared void.

The Salafi Trust argued that:

• The Salafi Trust is a registered entity and the mosque was registered as a waqf under Section 36 of the Waqf Act, 1995.
• A.K. Babu is the Secretary of the Trust as per the records of the Waqf Board.
• The Mahal Committee is not a registered entity and cannot claim management rights.

The High Court found that the Mahal Committee was not a registered entity and hence could not file a suit. The High Court also found that the suit was not filed in a representative capacity. Additionally, the High Court held that the mosque was managed by the Salafi Trust.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues but addressed the core question of whether the High Court correctly exercised its revisional jurisdiction under Section 83(9) of the Waqf Act, 1995, and whether the Mahal Committee had the legal standing to file a suit.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited vs. Dilbahar Singh [(2014) 9 SCC 78], Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to differentiate between the scope of “appeal” and “revision,” emphasizing that “revision” confers a narrower jurisdiction.
• Section 6 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860: This provision was used to determine the legal standing of a society to sue or be sued.
• Section 9 of the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955: This provision was also used to determine the legal standing of a society to sue or be sued.
• Section 36 of the Waqf Act, 1995: This provision deals with the registration of Waqfs.

Judgment

The Court’s view on the authorities:

• Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited vs. Dilbahar Singh [(2014) 9 SCC 78]*: The Court used this case to establish that revisional jurisdiction is narrower than appellate jurisdiction.
• Section 6 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860: The Court used this to determine that the Mahal Committee, not being a registered society, could not sue in its own name.
• Section 9 of the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955: The Court used this to determine that the Mahal Committee, not being a registered society, could not sue in its own name.
• Section 36 of the Waqf Act, 1995: The Court used this to determine that the registration of the mosque under the Salafi Trust was valid.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the legal status of the Mahal Committee and the validity of the Waqf Board certificate. The court emphasized that the Mahal Committee was not a registered entity and therefore lacked the legal standing to file a suit. The court also noted that the Mahal Committee did not challenge the Waqf Board certificate, which was crucial to the case. The court also considered that the mosque was constructed on land given by the Salafi Trust, and the trust had registered the mosque as a waqf under Section 36 of the Waqf Act, 1995.

The court’s reasoning was heavily based on legal principles and statutory interpretations, with less emphasis on the factual aspects of the case.

The court also considered the following points:

• The Waqf Tribunal committed an illegality by not framing an issue about the status of the Mahal Committee and by recording a finding that a local unit of a registered society was entitled to sue.
• The Mahal Committee did not file any revision against the rejection of the relief of declaration regarding the certificate issued by the Chief Executive Officer of the Kerala State Waqf Board.
• The certificate dated 24.03.2004 is a certificate of registration issued under Section 36 of the Waqf Act, 1995.
• The mosque was constructed on a vacant plot given by Salafi Trust.

The Supreme Court quoted:

“The aforesaid finding is completely contrary to law. A society registered under the Societies Registration Act is entitled to sue and be sued, only in terms of its bye­laws.”

“Therefore, unless the plaintiff in a suit which claims to be a society, demonstrates that it is a registered entity and that the person who signed and verified the pleadings was authorised by the bye­laws to do so, the suit cannot be entertained.”

“Once it is admitted that it was the first respondent namely the Salafi Trust who got the mosque registered as a waqf under Section 36 of the Act and once it is admitted by the appellants in paragraph 2 of their plaint in OS No.9 of 2004 that the mosque was constructed in a vacant plot demised by Salafi Trust, it was not open to them to go against the statutory prescriptions and claim to be the Mutawalli.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

• Local committees must be registered entities with proper authorization to file suits.
• A certificate of registration issued by the Waqf Board under Section 36 of the Waqf Act holds significant legal weight.
• The management of a mosque is generally vested in the registered Waqf Trust, especially if the land belongs to the trust.
• Revisional jurisdiction is narrower than appellate jurisdiction, and High Courts can correct illegalities committed by the Waqf Tribunal.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that a local committee that is not a registered entity and does not have authorization under its bye-laws cannot claim management rights over a mosque if the mosque is registered as a waqf under Section 36 of the Waqf Act, 1995, by a registered trust, especially if the land belongs to the trust. This case reinforces the importance of registration and statutory compliance in matters of Waqf management.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court’s decision. The court emphasized that the Mahal Committee lacked the legal standing to file a suit and that the registration of the mosque under the Salafi Trust was valid. The judgment reinforces the importance of statutory compliance and proper legal standing in disputes related to Waqf properties.