REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICITION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1182 OF 2006

Ramesh Gobindram (dead) through Lrs. …Appellant

Versus

Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf …Respondent

(With C.A. No.1183 of 2006 and C.A. No. 3605 of 2008)

J U D G M E N T

T.S. THAKUR, J.

1. These three appeals by special leave arise out of three  

different orders passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh  

whereby revision petitions filed by the appellants against the

orders of A.P. Wakf Tribunal have been dismissed and the  

orders of eviction passed by the Tribunal affirmed. Since the  

appeals  raise  a  common  question  of  law  for  our  

determination the same were heard together and shall stand  

disposed of by this common order. The question is whether  

the Wakf Tribunal constituted under Section 83 of the Wakf  

Act, 1995 was competent to entertain and adjudicate upon  

disputes  regarding  eviction  of  the  appellants  who  are  

occupying  different  items  of  what  are  admittedly  Wakf  

properties.  The  Wakf  Tribunal  before  whom the  suits  for  

eviction  of  the  tenants  were  filed  answered  the  question  

regarding its jurisdiction in the affirmative and decreed the  

suit filed against the appellant. Aggrieved by the said orders  

the appellants filed revision petitions before the High Court  

of Andhra Pradesh, inter alia, contending that the Tribunal  

was  in  error  in  assuming  jurisdiction  and  directing  their  

eviction.  Dismissal  of  the  Revision  Petitions  by  the  High  

Court has led to the filing of the present appeals as already  

noticed above.    

2

2. Whether  or  not  the Wakf  Tribunal  can entertain  and  

adjudicate  upon  a  dispute  regarding  eviction  of  a  tenant  

holding wakf property under the Wakf Board, would depend  

upon  the  scheme  of  the  Wakf  Act,  1995  and  express  or  

implied  exclusion  of  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Civil  Courts  to  

entertain  any  such  dispute.  If  the  Act  excludes  the  

jurisdiction  of  the  Civil  Courts  whether  such  exclusion  is  

absolute  and  all  pervasive  or  limited  only  to  a  particular  

class of disputes is also an incidental question that may have  

to be addressed. There is a cleavage in the judicial opinion  

expressed on these questions by different High Courts in the  

country.  The  High  Court  of  Andhra  Pradesh  has  in  T.  

Shivalingam v.  A.P. Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad & Ors.  

1999 (3) ALT 602, P. Rama Rao & Ors. v. High Court of  

Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Registrar (Vigilance) and Ors.  

2000  (1)  ALT  210,  Jai  Bharat  Co-operative  Housing  

Society Ltd. v. A.P. State Wakf Board, Hyderabad 2000  

(5) ALD 743 and Syed Muneer v. Chief Executive Officer  

and  5  Ors. 2001  (4)  ALD  430  taken  the  view  that  the  

3

Tribunal  established  under  Section  83  of  the  Wakf  Act  is  

competent  to  entertain  and  adjudicate  upon  all  kinds  of  

disputes so long as the same relate to any wakf property. So  

also the High Court of Rajasthan in Anjuman A. Burhani v.  

Daudi Bohra Jamaet, Registered Society and Anr. AIR  

2009 Raj. 150 has taken the view that, the very purpose of  

creating a Tribunal under the Wakf Act would be defeated if  

the  jurisdiction  of  the  Tribunal  is  construed  in  a  narrow  

sense. A similar view has been expressed by the High Court  

of Madhya Pradesh in  Wakf Imambara Imlipura v.  Smt.  

Khursheeda Bi & Ors. AIR 2009 MP 238. The High Court of  

Kerala in Aliyathammada Beethathabiyyapura Pookoya  

Haji v. Pattakkal Cheriyakoya & Ors. AIR 2003 Ker. 366  

and the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Surinder Singh  

v. Punjab Wakf Board & Ors., CR No.32 of 2009(1) have  

also taken a similar view.   

3. A contrary view has been expressed by the High Court  

of  Karnataka  in  St.  Gregorious  Orthodox  Cathedral,  

Bangalore  v.  Aga Ali Asgar Wakf, Bangalore and Anr.  

4

2008 (6)  KarLJ  358 and by the  High  Court  of  Madras  in  

Saleem v.  PA Kareem & Ors. 2008 (2) CTC 492 (Mad).  

The High Court of Allahabad in Suresh Kumar v. Managing  

Committee 2009 INDLAW All 1770 has concurred with that  

line  of  reasoning.  The  High  Court  of  Bombay  in  Abdul  

Kadar @ Babbu s/o Ismail v.  Masjid Juma Darwaja a  

registered Public Trust through its Secretary Manzoor  

Mohammad  z/o  Zahoor  Mohammad 2009  (1)  BomCR  

498 has also taken the view that in cases where the dispute  

is  not  regarding  the  nature  of  the  property,  it  is  a  civil  

dispute which can be determined only by the competent Civil  

Court and not by the Tribunal constituted under Section 83  

of the Act. We shall presently advert to the reasoning and  

the  views  taken  by  the  High  Courts  in  the  decisions  

mentioned above. But before we do so, we need to briefly  

refer to the scheme of the Wakf Act, 1995 and the historical  

background in which the same was enacted.  

4. Wakfs and matters relating thereto were for a long time  

governed  by  the  Wakf  Act,  1954.  The  need  for  a  fresh  

5

legislation on the subject was, however, felt because of the  

deficiencies  noticed  in  the  working  of  the  said  earlier  

enactment especially those governing the Wakf Boards, their  

power of superintendence and control over the management  

of individual wakfs. Repeated amendments to the 1954 Act,  

having failed to provide effective answers to the questions  

that  kept  arising for  consideration,  the  Parliament  had to  

bring a comprehensive legislation in the form of Wakf Act  

1995  for  better  administration  of  wakfs  and  matters  

connected therewith or incidental thereto. Chapter I of the  

1995  Act  deals  with  Preliminaries  like  definitions,  title,  

extent  and  commencement  and  application  of  this  Act.  

Chapter  II  provides  for  preliminary  survey  of  wakfs,  

publication  of  list  of  wakfs,  disputes  regarding  wakfs  and  

also the powers of the Tribunal to determine such disputes.  

Chapter III deals with Central Wakf Council while Chapter IV  

deals  with  establishment  of  Boards  and  their  functions.  

Chapter V, VI and VII regulate the registration of Wakfs and  

maintenance  of  accounts  thereof  and  the  finances  of  the  

6

Wakf  Board.  Chapter  VIII,  with  which  the  controversy  at  

hand  is  more  intimately  connected  deals  with  judicial  

proceedings  and,  inter  alia,  provides  for  constitution  of  

tribunals and adjudication of disputes by them as well  as  

exclusion  of  jurisdiction  of  Civil  Courts.  Chapter  IX  is  a  

miscellaneous  chapter  that  confers  power  on  the  Central  

Government to regulate the secular activities of wakfs and  

empowers the State Government to issue directions apart  

from other provisions like establishment and reorganization  

and establishment of boards.

5. Before  we  take  up  the  core  issue  whether  the  

jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain and adjudicate upon  

disputes regarding eviction of wakf property stands excluded  

under the Wakf Act we may briefly outline the approach that  

the Courts have to adopt while dealing with such questions.  

The well-settled rule in this regard is that the Civil Courts  

have the jurisdiction to try all  suits  of civil  nature except  

those  entertainment  whereof  is  expressly  or  impliedly  

barred. The jurisdiction of  Civil  Courts to try suits  of civil  

7

nature is very expansive. Any statue which excludes such  

jurisdiction is,  therefore,  an exception to the general  rule  

that all disputes shall be triable by a Civil Court.  Any such  

exception  cannot  be  readily  inferred  by  the  Courts.   The  

Court  would,  lean  in  favour  of  a  construction  that  would  

uphold the retention of jurisdiction of the Civil  Courts and  

shift the onus of proof to the party that asserts that Civil  

Court’s jurisdiction is ousted.  

6. Even in cases where the statute accords finality to the  

orders passed by the Tribunals, the Court will have to see  

whether  the  Tribunal  has  the  power  to  grant  the  reliefs  

which  the Civil  Courts  would  normally  grant  in  suits  filed  

before them. If the answer is in negative exclusion of the  

Civil Courts jurisdiction would not be ordinarily inferred. In  

Rajasthan SRTC  v. Bal  Mukund Bairwa (2),  (2009)  4  

SCC 299, a three-Judge Bench of this Court observed:

“There is a presumption that a civil court has  jurisdiction. Ouster of civil court’s jurisdiction  is not to be readily inferred.  A person taking  a plea contra must establish the same.  Even  

8

in a case where jurisdiction of a civil court is  sought to be barred under a statute, the civil  court can exercise its jurisdiction in respect  of  some  matters  particularly  when  the  statutory  authority  or  tribunal  acts  without  jurisdiction.”

7. To the same effect are the decisions of this Court in  

Pabbojan Tea Co. Ltd. v. Dy. Commr (1968) 1 SCR 260,  

Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya  v. Anil Panjwani  AIR 2003  

SC 2508, Dhulabhai  v. State of M.P.  (1968) 3 SCR 662,  

Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, (1997) 5 SCC  

536, State of A.P. v. Manjeti Laxmi Kantha Rao (2000) 3  

SCC 689, Dhruv Green Field Ltd.  v. Hukam Singh and  

Ors.  (2002)  6  SCC  416,  Dwarka  Prasad  Agarwal  v.  

Ramesh  Chandra  Agarwala,  AIR  2003  SC  2696 and  

State of Tamil Nadu v. Ramalinga Samigal Madam AIR  

1986 SC 794.

8. Let  us  now see  whether  the  respondent-Wakf  Board  

who  claims  exclusion  of  jurisdiction  of  Civil  Court  has  

discharged the onus that lay upon it. Section 6 of the Act  

9

which bears direct relevance to that question may at this  

stage be extracted:  

“Section 6. Disputes regarding wakfs.-  

(1)  If  any  question  arises  whether  a  particular property specified as wakf property  in the list of wakfs is wakf property or not or  whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia  wakf  or  Sunni  wakf,  the  Board  or  the  mutawalli  of  the  wakf  or  any  person  interested therein  may institute  a  suit  in  a  Tribunal for the decision of the question and  the decision of the Tribunal in respect of such  matter shall be final:

Provided  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.

Explanation-For  the  purposes  of  this  section  and Section  7,  the  expression  “any  person interested therein”,  shall,  in relation  to any property specified as wakf property in  the  list  of  wakfs  published  after  the  commencement of this Act, shall include also  every person who, though not interested in  the  wakf  concerned,  is  interested  in  such  property  and  to  whom  a  reasonable  opportunity  had been afforded to represent  his  case  by  notice  served  on  him  in  that  behalf  during  the  course  of  the  relevant  inquiry under Section 4.

(2)  Notwithstanding  anything  contained  in  sub-section (1), no proceeding under this Act  

10

in  respect  of  any  wakf  shall  be  stayed  by  reason, only of the pendency of any such suit  or of any appeal or other proceeding arising  out of such suit.

(3)  The  Survey  Commissioner  shall  not  be  made a party to any suit under sub-section  (1)  and  no  suit,  prosecution  or  other  legal  proceeding shall lie against him in respect of  anything  which  is  in  good  faith  done  or  intended to be done in pursuance of this Act  or any rules made thereunder.

(4)  The  list  of  wakfs  shall,  unless  it  is  modified  in  pursuance  of  a  decision  of  the  Tribunal under sub-section (1), be final and  conclusive.

(5) On and from the commencement of this  Act  in  a  State,  no  suit  or  other  legal  proceeding shall be instituted or commenced  in  a  Court  in  that  State  in  relation  to  any  question referred to in sub-section (1).”

9. A plain reading of sub-section (5) of Section 6 (supra)  

would  show that  the Civil  Court’s  jurisdiction  to  entertain  

any suit or other proceedings stands specifically excluded in  

relation to any question referred to in sub-section (1). The  

exclusion it  is evident from the language employed is not  

absolute or all pervasive.  It is limited to the adjudication of  

the question (a) whether a particular property specified as  

11

wakf  property  in  the  list  of  wakfs  is  or  is  not  a  wakf  

property, and (b) whether a wakf specified in such list is a  

Shia wakf or a Sunni wakf. The Board or the mutawalli of  

the wakf or any person interested in the wakf is competent  

to institute a suit in a Tribunal for a decision on the above  

question  or  questions,  which  decision  shall  then  be  final  

provided  that  no  such  suit  can  be  entertained  by  the  

Tribunal after the expiry of one year from the date of the  

publication of the list of wakfs.   

10. We may at  this  stage refer  to  Section  7  of  the  Act  

which provides for the forum for determination of questions  

referred to therein and arising after the commencement of  

this Act. What is important is that the questions referred to  

in  Section  7(1)  are  the  very  same  questions  that  are  

referred  to  in  Section  6(1)  with  the  only  difference  that  

Section  7(1)  refer  to  the  said  questions  arising  after  the  

commencement of the Act.  Section 7 is extracted below:

“Section  7.  Power  of  Tribunal  to  determine disputes regarding wakfs.-

12

(1) If, after the commencement of this Act,  any  question  arises,  whether  a  particular  property  specified  as  wakf  property  in  a  list  of  wakfs  is  wakf  property  or  not,  or  whether  a  wakf  specified in such list is a Shia wakf or a  Sunni wakf, the Board or the mutawalli  of  the  wakf,  or  any  person  interested  therein,  may  apply  to  the  Tribunal  having  jurisdiction  in  relation  to  such  property,  for  the  decision  of  the  question  and  the  decision  of  the  Tribunal thereon shall be final:

Provided that -  

(a) in a case of the list of wakfs relating to  any  part  of  the  State  and  published  after the commencement of this Act no  such  application  shall  be  entertained  after  the  expiry  of  one  year  from the  date of publication of the list of wakfs;  and

(b) in the case of the list of wakfs to any  part of the State and published at any  time  within  a  period  of  one  year  immediately  preceding  the  commencement  of  this  Act,  such  an  application  may  be  entertained  by  Tribunal  within  the period of  one year  from such commencement;

Provided  further  that  where  any  such  question has been heard and finally decided  by  a  Civil  Court  in  a  suit  instituted  before  

13

such commencement, the Tribunal shall  not  re-open such question.

(2) Except  where  the  Tribunal  has  no  jurisdiction by reason of the provisions  of sub-section (5), no proceeding under  this section in respect of any wakf shall  be  stayed  by  any  Court.   Tribunal  or  other  authority  by  reason  only  of  the  pendency  of  any  suit,  application  or  appeal  or  other  proceeding arising out  of any such suit, application, appeal or  other proceeding.

(3) The Chief Executive Officer shall not be  made a party to any application under  sub-section (1).

(4) The list of wakfs and where any such list  is modified in pursuance of a decision of  the Tribunal under sub–section (1), the  list as so modified, shall be final.

(5) The Tribunal shall  not have jurisdiction  to  determine  any  matter  which  is  the  subject-matter of any suit or proceeding  instituted or commenced in a Civil Court  under  sub-section  (1)  of  Section  6,  before the commencement of this Act or  which  is  the  subject-matter  of  any  appeal  from the  decree  passed  before  such commencement in any such suit or  proceeding  or  of  any  application  for  revision  or  review  arising  out  of  such  suit, proceeding or appeal, as the case  may be.”

14

11. Second proviso to Section 7(1) accords finality to the  

judgments of the Civil Court in suits instituted before such  

commencement. Sub-section (5) to Section 7 excludes from  

the  jurisdiction  of  the  Tribunal  any  dispute  which  is  the  

subject matter of a suit in a Civil Court instituted before the  

commencement of the Act.

12. From a conjoint reading of the provisions of Sections 6  

and 7 (supra) it is clear that the jurisdiction to determine  

whether or not a property is a wakf property or whether a  

wakf is a Shia wakf or a Sunni wakf rests entirely with the  

Tribunal and no suit or other proceeding can be instituted or  

commenced in a Civil Court in relation to any such question  

after the commencement of the Act. What is noteworthy is  

that  under  Section  6  read  with  Section  7  (supra)  the  

institution  of  the  Civil  Court  is  barred  only  in  regard  to  

questions that are specifically enumerated therein. The bar  

is not complete so as to extend to other questions that may  

arise in relation to the wakf property.  

15

13. We may at this  stage usefully  digress from the core  

issue only to highlight the fact that Sections 6(1) and the  

proviso thereto has fallen for interpretation of this Court on  

a few occasions. In Board of Muslim Wakfs Rajasthan v.  

Radha  Kishan  and  Ors.  (1979)  2  SCC  468 one  of  the  

questions  that  fell  for  determination  was,  who  are  the  

parties that could be taken to be concerned in a proceeding  

under sub-section(1) of Section 6 of the Act. This Court held  

that under Section 6(1) the Board or the mutawalli of the  

wakf or any person interested therein is entitled to file a suit  

but the word “therein” following the expression “any person  

interested” must necessarily refer to the word “wakf” which  

immediately precedes it. The object underlying the proviso  

observed, this Court was to confine the power to file a suit  

to the mutawalli and persons interested in the Wakf. It did  

not extend to persons who are not persons interested in the  

wakf. Consequently the right, title and interest of a stranger,  

(a non-Muslim), to the wakf in a property cannot be put in  

jeopardy merely because that property is included in the list  

16

of  wakfs.  The  special  rule  of  limitation  prescribed  by  the  

proviso to Section 6(1) was itself  held inapplicable to him  

and a suit for declaration of title to any property included in  

the list of wakfs held maintainable even after the expiry of  

the  period  of  one  year.  The  following  passage  from  the  

decision is in this regard apposite:

“The  question  that  arises  for  consideration, therefore, is as to who are the  parties that could be taken to be concerned  in  a  proceeding  under  sub-section  (1)  of  Section  6  of  the  Act,  and  whether  the  list  published under sub-section (2) of Section 5  declaring  certain  property  to  be  wakf  property, would bind a person who is neither  a  mutawalli  nor  a  person interested  in  the  wakf.

The  answer  to  these  questions  must  turn on the true meaning and construction of  the  word  ‘therein’  in  the  expression  ‘any  person interested therein’ appearing in sub- section  (1)  of  Section  6.  In  order  to  understand the meaning of the word ‘therein’  in  our  view,  it  is  necessary to refer  to  the  preceding words ‘the Board or the mutawalli  of  the  wakf’.  The  word  ‘therein’  must  necessarily  refer  to  the  ‘wakf’  which  immediately  precedes  it.  It  cannot  refer  to  the  ‘wakf  property’.  Sub-section  (1)  of  Section 6 enumerates the persons who can  file suits and also the questions in respect of  which such suits can be filed. In enumerating  the persons who are empowered to file suits  

17

under  this  provision,  only  the  Board,  the  mutawalli  of  the  wakf,  and  ‘any  person  interested  therein’,  thereby  necessarily  meaning any person interested in the wakf,  are listed.  It should be borne in mind that  the Act deals with wakfs, its institutions and  its properties. It would, therefore, be logical  and  reasonable  to  infer  that  its  provisions  empower  only  those  who  are  interested  in  the  wakfs,  to  institute  suits.  Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxx It  follows  that  where  a  stranger  who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a  certain  property his  right,  title  and interest  therein  cannot  be  put  in  jeopardy  merely  because the property is included in the list.  Such a person is not required to file a suit for  a  declaration  of  his  title  within  a  period of  one year.  The special  rule  of  limitation laid  down in proviso to sub-section (1) of Section  6 is  not  applicable  to him. In other words,  the  list  published  by  the  Board  of  Wakfs  under  sub-section  (2)  of  Section  5  can  be  challenged  by  him  by  filing  a  suit  for  declaration of  title  even after  the expiry  of  the  period  of  one  year,  if  the  necessity  of  filing such suit arises.”

14. To  the  same  effect  is  the  decision  of  this  Court  in  

Punjab  Wakf  Board  v. Gram  Panchayat  Alias  Gram  

Sabha (2000) 2 SCC 121.  

18

15. The exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to  

adjudicate  upon  disputes  whether  a  particular  property  

specified  in  the  wakf  list  is  or  is  not  a  wakf  property  or  

whether a wakf specified in list is a Shia wakf or a Sunni  

wakf  is  clear  and  presents  no  difficulty  whatsoever.  The  

difficulty, however, arises on account of the fact that apart  

from Section  6(5)  which  bars  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Civil  

Courts  to  determine  matters  referred  to  in  Section  6(1),  

Section 85 of the Act also bars the jurisdiction of the Civil  

Courts to entertain any legal proceedings in respect of any  

dispute,  question  or  matter  relating  to  a  wakf  property.  

Section 85 of the Act reads:  

“85.  Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Courts –  No suit or other legal proceedings shall lie in  any  Civil  Court  in  respect  of  any  dispute,  question  or  other  matter  relating  to  any  wakf, wakf property or other matter which is  required  by  or  under  this  Act  to  be  determined by a Tribunal. “

19

16. A plain reading of the above would show that the Civil  

Court’s  jurisdiction  is  excluded  only  in  cases  where  the  

matter in dispute is required under the Act to be determined  

by the Tribunal. The words “which is required by or under  

this Act to be determined by Tribunal” holds the key to the  

question whether or not all disputes concerning the wakf or  

wakf  property  stand excluded from the jurisdiction  of  the  

Civil  Court.  Whenever  a  question  arises  whether  “any  

dispute, question or other matter” relating to “any wakf or  

wakf property or other matter” falls within the jurisdiction of  

a Civil  Court the answer would depend upon whether any  

such dispute, question or other matter is required under the  

Act to be determined by the Tribunal constituted under the  

Act. If the answer be in the affirmative, the jurisdiction of  

Civil  Court would be excluded qua such a question, for in  

that  case the Tribunal  alone can entertain  and determine  

any  such  question.  The  bar  of  jurisdiction  contained  in  

Section 85 is in that sense much wider than that contained  

in Section 6(5) read with Section 7 of the Wakf Act. While  

20

the  latter  bars  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Civil  Court  only  in  

relation of questions specified in Sections 6(1) and 7(1), the  

bar of jurisdiction contained in Section 85 would exclude the  

jurisdiction of the Civil Courts not only in relation to matters  

that  specifically  fall  in  Sections  6  and  7  but  also  other  

matters required to be determined by a Tribunal under the  

Act. There are a host of such matters in which the Tribunal  

exercises original or appellate jurisdiction. To illustrate the  

point we may usefully refer to some of the provisions of the  

Act where the bar contained in the said section would get  

attracted.  Section  33  of  the  Act  deals  with  the  power  of  

inspection by a Chief Executive Officer or person authorized  

by him. In the event of any failure or negligence on the part  

of a mutawalli  in the performance of his duties leading to  

any loss or damage, the Chief Executive Officer can with the  

prior approval of the Board pass an order for the recovery of  

the  amount  or  property  which  has  been  misappropriated,  

misapplied  or  fraudulently  retained.  Sub-section  (4)  of  

Section  33  then  entitles  the  aggrieved  person  to  file  an  

21

appeal to the Tribunal and empowers the Tribunal to deal  

with and adjudicate upon the validity of the orders passed  

by the Chief Executive Officer.  

17. Similarly under Section 35 the Tribunal may direct the  

mutawalli or any other person concerned to furnish security  

or direct conditional attachment of the whole or any portion  

of the property so specified.

18. Section  47  of  the  Act  requires  the  accounts  of  the  

wakfs  to  be  audited  whereas  Section  48  empowers  the  

Board  to  examine  the  audit  report,  and  to  call  for  an  

explanation of any person in regard to any matter and pass  

such  orders  as  it  may  think  fit  including  an  order  for  

recovery  of  the  amount  certified  by  the  auditor  under  

Section 47(2) of the Act.  The mutawalli or any other person  

aggrieved by any such direction has the right to appeal to  

the  Tribunal  under  Section  48.  Similar  provisions  giving  

powers  to  the  Wakf  Board  to  pass  orders  in  respect  of  

matters stipulated therein are found in Sections 51, 54, 61,  

22

64, 67, 72 and 73 of the Act. Suffice it to say that there are  

a host of questions and matters that have to be determined  

by the Tribunal under the Act, in relation to the wakf or wakf  

property or other matters. Section 85 of the Act clearly bars  

jurisdiction  of  the  Civil  Courts  to  entertain  any  suit  or  

proceedings in relation to orders passed by or proceedings  

that may be commenced before the Tribunal. It follows that  

although  Section  85  is  wider  than  what  is  contained  in  

Sections 6 and 7 of the Act, the exclusion of jurisdiction of  

Civil  Courts  even  under  Section  85  is  not  absolute.  It  is  

limited only to matters that are required by the Act to be  

determined by a Tribunal. So long as the dispute or question  

raised before the Civil Court does not fall within four corners  

of the powers vested in the Tribunal, the jurisdiction of the  

former to entertain a suit or proceedings in relation to any  

such question cannot be said to be barred.  

19. The High Courts of Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan, Madhya  

Pradesh, Punjab and Haryana have in the decisions to which  

we have made reference in the earlier part of this judgment  

23

taken the view that  the jurisdiction  of  the  Civil  Courts  is  

barred in respect of disputes that concerns with any wakf or  

wakf property.  The decisions rendered by these High Courts  

draw  support  for  that  conclusion  from  Section  83  of  the  

Wakf Act, 1995. The language employed in Section 83 of the  

Act has been understood to be so wide as to include any  

dispute, question or other matter relating to a wakf or wakf  

property. Section 83 of the Act, however, does not deal with  

the  exclusion  of  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Civil  Courts  to  

entertain civil suits generally or suit of any particular class or  

category. The exclusion of Civil Court’s jurisdiction is dealt  

with by Section 6(5) and Section 85 of the Act. To interpret  

Section 83 as a provision that excludes the jurisdiction of  

the  Civil  Courts  is  not,  therefore,  legally  correct,  for  that  

provision deals with constitution of Tribunals, the procedure  

which  the  Tribunals  would  follow  and  matters  relating  

thereto.  It reads:

            “83. Constitution of Tribunals, etc.  

24

(1) The  State  Government  shall,  by  notification in the Official Gazette, constitute  as many Tribunals, as it may think fit, for the  determination  of  any  dispute,  question  or  other  matter  relating  to  a  wakf  or  wakf  property under this Act and define the local  limits and jurisdiction under this Act of each  of such Tribunals.  

(2) Any mutawalli person interested in a wakf  or  any other person aggrieved by an order  made  under  this  Act,  or  rules  made  thereunder, may make an application within  the  time  specified  in  this  Act  or  where  no  such  time  has  been  specified,  within  such  time as may be prescribed, to the Tribunal  for  the  determination  of  any  dispute,  question or other matter relating to the wakf.  

(3) Where any application made under sub-  section  (1)  relates  to  any  wakf  property  which falls within the territorial limits of the  jurisdiction  of  two  or  more  Tribunals,  such  application  may  be  made  to  the  Tribunal  within  the  local  limits  of  whose  jurisdiction  the mutawalli or any one of the mutawallis of  the  wakf  actually  and  voluntarily  resides,  carries  on business  or  personally  works for  gain,  and,  where  any  such  application  is  made  to  the  Tribunal  aforesaid,  the  other  Tribunal or Tribunals having jurisdiction shall  not  entertain  any  application  for  the  determination  of  such  dispute,  question  or  other matter:  

Provided  that  the  State  Government  may, if it is of opinion that it is expedient in  the interest of the wakf or any other person  

25

person interested in a wakf or any person aggrieved of an  

order made under the Act or the rules framed thereunder to  

approach  the  Tribunal  for  determination  of  any  dispute,  

question  or  other  matter  relating  to  the  wakf.  What  is  

important is that the Tribunal can be approached only if the  

person doing so is a mutawalli or a person interested in a  

wakf or aggrieved by an order made under the Act or the  

rules. The remaining provisions of Section 83 provide for the  

procedure that the Tribunal shall follow and the manner in  

which the decision of a Tribunal shall be executed. No appeal  

is, however, maintainable against any such order although  

the High Court may call for the records and decide about the  

correctness, legality or propriety of any determination made  

by the Tribunal.   

21. There is, in our view, nothing in Section 83 to suggest  

that it pushes the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil  

Courts  extends  beyond  what  has  been  provided  for  in  

Section 6(5), Section 7 and Section 85 of the Act. It simply  

empowers  the  Government  to  constitute  a  Tribunal  or  

28

Tribunals for determination of any dispute, question of other  

matter relating to a wakf or wakf property which does not  

ipso  facto mean  that  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Civil  Courts  

stands  completely  excluded  by  reasons  of  such  

establishment.  It is noteworthy that the expression “for the  

determination  of  any  dispute,  question  or  other  matter  

relating to a wakf  or  wakf  property”  appearing in Section  

83(1) also appears in Section 85 of the Act.  Section 85 does  

not, however, exclude the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts in  

respect of any or every question or disputes only because  

the same relates to a wakf or a wakf property. Section 85 in  

terms provides that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court shall  

stand  excluded  in  relation  to  only  such  matters  as  are  

required  by  or  under  this  Act  to  be  determined  by  the  

Tribunal. The crucial question that shall have to be answered  

in  every  case  where  a  plea  regarding  exclusion  of  the  

jurisdiction  of  the  Civil  Court  is  raised  is  whether  the  

Tribunal is under the Act or the Rules required to deal with  

the matter sought to be brought before a Civil Court.  If it is  

29

not, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not excluded. But if  

the Tribunal is required to decide the matter the jurisdiction  

of the Civil Court would stand excluded.  

22. In the cases at hand the Act does not provide for any  

proceedings  before  the  Tribunal  for  determination  of  a  

dispute concerning the eviction of a tenant in occupation of a  

wakf property or the rights and obligations of the lessor and  

the lessees of such property. A suit seeking eviction of the  

tenants  from  what  is  admittedly  wakf  property  could,  

therefore, be filed only before the Civil Court and not before  

the Tribunal. The contrary view expressed by the Tribunal  

and  the  High  Court  of  Andhra  Pradesh  is  not,  therefore,  

legally sound. So also the view taken by the High Courts of  

Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Kerala and Punjab and Haryana  

in the decisions referred to earlier do not declare the law  

correctly and shall to the extent they run counter to what we  

have said hereinabove stand overruled. The view taken by  

the  High  Courts  of  Allahabad,  Karnataka,  Madras  and  

Bombay is, however, affirmed.  

30

23. In  the  result  these  appeals  succeed  and  are  hereby  

allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court and  

those passed by the Wakf Tribunal shall stand set aside and  

the suit filed by the respondent-Wakf Board for the eviction  

of the appellants dismissed leaving the parties to bear their  

own costs. We make it clear that this order shall not prevent  

the Wakf Board from instituting, if so advised, appropriate  

civil action before the competent Civil Court for redress in  

accordance with law. No costs.

……………………………J. (MARKANDEY KATJU)

……………………………J. New Delhi (T.S. THAKUR) September 1, 2010

31