New Delhi (ABC Live): For several years, wakf litigation in India remained unsettled. Courts delivered conflicting rulings on the scope of Wakf Tribunal jurisdiction. As a result, litigants increasingly relied on assertions rather than proof to access specialised forums. Consequently, tribunal proceedings often began without clear statutory foundations.

Against this backdrop, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Habib Alladin & Ors. v. Mohammed Ahmed(2026 INSC 90) marks a decisive shift. Importantly, the Court restores statutory discipline by tying tribunal jurisdiction to formal recognition under the Wakf Act. Moreover, when read alongside the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 2025, the judgment signals a broader transition—from informal religious claims to record-based governance.

Facts of the Case

The first appellant owned a parcel of land that a private builder developed into a residential apartment complex under a development agreement. Notably, the competent authority approved a sanctioned building plan that classified the entire structure as residential. Accordingly, the plan did not reserve any area for religious use.

However, the respondent claimed that during construction, the owner and builder enclosed part of the ground floor and began using it as a mosque. Further, the respondent asserted that members of the Muslim public had offered prayers at the site since 2008. On this basis, the respondent claimed that the property acquired the character of a “waqf by user” under Section 3(r)(i) of the Wakf Act, 1995.

Crucially, the respondent relied on no formal documentation. In particular, he produced:

• no deed of dedication,
• no entry in the list of auqaf under Section 5, and
• No registration in the Register of Auqaf under Section 37.

The respondent further stated that the cause of action arose in 2021, when the appellants allegedly blocked access and stopped worshippers from offering prayers. Consequently, the respondent filed a suit seeking a perpetual injunction to prevent interference.

Significantly, the respondent did not seek any declaratory relief to establish either:

• the existence of a mosque, or
• The Wakf status of the property.

In response, the appellants denied the claim entirely. Specifically, they argued that the property remained residential, that authorities never approved any religious structure, and that the Wakf Tribunal lacked jurisdiction in the absence of statutory recognition.

The Wakf Tribunal rejected an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Subsequently, the High Court upheld that decision, reasoning that the pleadings disclosed a case of waqf by user. Aggrieved by this approach, the appellants approached the Supreme Court on a pure jurisdictional question.

Central Legal Issue

Accordingly, the central issue before the Court was clear:

Can a Wakf Tribunal entertain a suit for injunction simpliciter concerning a property that is neither notified nor registered as a wakf, solely based on an assertion of “waqf by user”?

Jurisdictional Conflict in Wakf Jurisprudence

This appeal did not arise in isolation. Rather, it emerged amid conflicting Supreme Court authority.

On one hand, Ramesh Gobindram v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf (2010) held that Wakf Tribunals derive power strictly from statute. Therefore, civil courts retain jurisdiction unless the Act clearly assigns a dispute to the tribunal.

In contrast, later decisions such as Anis Fatma Begum (2010) and Rashid Wali Beg (2022) read Section 83 broadly. As a result, these rulings treated the provision as an omnibus source of tribunal jurisdiction for almost any wakf-related dispute.

Because of this divergence, lower courts applied inconsistent tests at the threshold stage. The present judgment directly resolves this inconsistency.

 Supreme Court’s Reasoning

A. Section 83 Does Not Create Jurisdiction

At the outset, the Court clarified the scope of Section 83. First, it held that the provision merely allows the State to constitute Wakf Tribunals. However, it does not independently grant substantive jurisdiction.

Moreover, the phrase “relating to a wakf or wakf property under this Act” limits tribunal power to matters that the Act expressly assigns. Accordingly, Section 83 cannot override Sections 6, 7, or 85. Otherwise, tribunals would replace civil courts—a result Parliament never intended.

B. Recognition Must Come Before Adjudication

Next, the Court drew a firm distinction between:

• recognising wakf status, and
• adjudicating disputes relating to wakf property.

Importantly, the Court held that a tribunal may decide whether a property is a wakf only when the property already appears in statutory records. Specifically, the property must feature either in:

• the list of auqaf under Section 5, or
• The Register of Auqaf under Section 37.

Therefore, a Wakf Tribunal cannot act as a forum for first-time recognition of wakf status.

C. Injunction Without Declaration Cannot Stand

Further, the Court examined the nature of the relief sought. Where the existence of a mosque remains disputed, and the wakf character is denied, a suit seeking only an injunction cannot survive.

In such cases, declaratory relief is not optional. Instead, it forms the jurisdictional foundation of the claim. Without it, the tribunal lacks authority to proceed.

D. Correction of Precedential Drift

Finally, the Court addressed earlier doctrinal drift. It held that Anis Fatma Begum wrongly expanded Section 83 without referring the issue to a larger bench. Likewise, it clarified that Rashid Wali Beg misread the 2013 amendment.

Importantly, the Court explained that the amendment merely widened the category of recognised wakfs. It did not, however, enlarge tribunal power.

Holding of the Court

Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that:

1. The Wakf Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear the suit.
2. Pleading “waqf by user” alone does not confer jurisdiction.
3. Civil courts retain authority where wakf status remains disputed.
4. Courts must reject such plaints under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal.

Alignment with the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 2025

Importantly, the judgment aligns closely with the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 2025. The new Act prospectively removes waqf by the user and insists on formal dedication and registration. At the same time, it strengthens surveys, records, and digital governance.

Therefore, by insisting on statutory recognition even under the old regime, the Court effectively anticipates the 2025 reforms. In substance, the judgment enforces what the new Act now mandates.

Comparative Position

Post-2025 Litigation Impact

Taken together, this judgment and the 2025 Act reshape wakf litigation.

First, litigants can no longer secure threshold injunctions by alleging informal religious use.
Second, civil courts now act as the default forum where wakf status is disputed.
Third, litigation strategy must shift toward registration, surveys, and records.
Finally, the system now prioritises administrative governance over judicial shortcuts.

Post-2025 rule of thumb:

No dedication or registration → no Wakf Tribunal → civil court first.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Habib Alladin & Ors. v. Mohammed Ahmed delivers a long-needed doctrinal reset. By doing so, the Supreme Court restores statutory limits and aligns judicial interpretation with the Wakf Act, 2025. As a result, wakf law moves away from jurisdiction by assertion and toward jurisdiction by statute, ensuring clarity, predictability, and institutional accountability.

Read Also ABC Report

Explained: SC Ruling on Waqf Amendment Act, 2025