Waqf Board & Not Waqf Tribunal Has Jurisdiction To Decide Issue Of Mutawalli : Supreme Court
Recently, the Supreme Court held that the original jurisdiction to decide the issue pertaining to Mutawalliship vests with the Waqf board and not the Waqf Tribunal. Distinguishing the role of the Waqf Tribunal from that of the board, the Court said that the former is an adjudicatory authority while the latter deals with administration-related issues. “After all, the Waqf Tribunal is...
Recently, the Supreme Court held that the original jurisdiction to decide the issue pertaining to Mutawalliship vests with the Waqf board and not the Waqf Tribunal. Distinguishing the role of the Waqf Tribunal from that of the board, the Court said that the former is an adjudicatory authority while the latter deals with administration-related issues.
“After all, the Waqf Tribunal is only an adjudicating authority over a dispute while the Waqf Board is expected to deal with any issue pertaining to administration. The power of superintendence cannot be confined to routine affairs of a Waqf but it includes a situation where a dispute arises while managing the property and that would certainly include a right of a person to be a Mutawalli after all, it is the Mutawalli who does the job of administering and managing the Waqf.,” stated Justices M.M Sundresh and S.V.N. Bhatti.
The Court further observed that the Waqf Tribunal is deemed a civil court with the same powers as the Civil Court. In other words, a dispute can be tried like a suit by the Waqf Tribunal., the Court added.
The crux of the matter is that both the litigating parties had claimed Mutawalliship of the Waqf. Ultimately, the Waqf Board held in favor of the appellant, declaring him a Mutawalli. Aggrieved by such an order, the opposite party approached the tribunal. Having no relief granted, the opposite party filed a revision before the High Court. While the High Court did not go into the merits of the case, it set aside the judgment by ruling that the Waqf Board did not have the jurisdiction to decide this issue. Thus, the tribunal directed matter to be decided afresh. Against this order, the appellants filed an appeal before the Top Court.
At the outset, the Court perused the relevant provisions under the Waqf Act of 1995. In this context, it may also be noted that Section 32(2)(g) of the Act states that one of the Board's functions is appointing and removing mutawallis.
Elaborating, the Court said: “The word 'competent authority' as mentioned in the definition clause contained in Section 3(i) makes the position further clear that it is the Waqf Board which has got the jurisdiction and not the Waqf Tribunal.”
In view of this projection, the Court concluded that the matter could not be remitted to the Tribunal as the Waqf Board is the competent authority for deciding the present issue. Thus, while setting aside the impugned order, the court directed the High Court to decide the matter on merits.
Considering that the dispute was pending since 1987, the Court requested the High Court to expedite the hearing and dispose it at the earliest.
Case Title: S V CHERIYAKOYA THANGAL v. S.V P POOKOYA & ORS., CIVIL APPEAL NO.4629/2024
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 309