New Delhi, Apr 18 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Thursday held that the Waqf Board has the authority to deal with any issue on administration or relating to Mutawalliship.
The Supreme Court also set aside the Kerala High Court's October 29, 2018 order, which held that only the Waqf Tribunal, not the Waqf Board has the jurisdiction to decide the issue of Mutawalliship.
A bench comprising Justice M M Sundresh and Justice S V N Bhatti while setting aside the Kerala High Court order said that the Waqf Tribunal is only an adjudicating authority over a dispute while the Waqf Board is expected to deal with any issue about administration, including the appointment of Mutawalli whose job is managing the Waqf properties.
The matter pertains to a dispute before the Waqf Board, in which two parties claimed their respective rights to Mutawalliship and Sheikhship.
The Waqf Board held in favour of the appellant declaring him as a Mutawalli.
Being aggrieved, respondents applied before the Waqf Tribunal, by invoking Section 83 of the Waqf Act, 1995 which, after hearing both sides, upheld the Waqf Board order and said that there was no perversity in the decision rendered by the Waqf Board.
A plea was also taken by the respondents before both the Waqf Board and the Waqf Tribunal, on the question of jurisdiction.
It was contended by the respondents that it is the Waqf Tribunal that has the original jurisdiction to decide the issue on Mutawalliship and, therefore, the Waqf Board did not have the jurisdiction.
The respondent then approached the Kerala High Court which set aside the judgment and decree of the Waqf Tribunal holding that the Waqf Board did not have the jurisdiction and, therefore, the matter had to be decided afresh only by the Waqf Tribunal.
The matter was then brought before the Supreme Court.
The Apex Court while hearing the appeal, said that the Kerala High Court order cannot be sustained in the eyes of the law as the Waqf Board has rightly exercised the jurisdiction in the exercise of the power conferred under Section 32(2)(g) read with the definition under Section 3(i) which defines a ‘Mutawalli’."
The bench said, “As per Section 83 sub Sections (5) and (7) of the Act which deals with the powers of the Tribunal, the Waqf Tribunal is deemed to be a civil court having the same powers that can be exercised by the civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the bench held.
"In other words, a dispute can be tried like a suit by the Waqf Tribunal. Under sub-section (7) of Section 83 of the Waqf Act, the decision of the Tribunal shall be final and binding upon the parties and it shall have the force of a decree made by a civil court," the bench said.
The Supreme Court remitted the matter back to the high court to decide the revision on merits, under law except the issue of jurisdiction as decided by the top court in this appeal.
The bench also asked the high court to expedite the hearing and make an endeavour to dispose it of as early as possible since the revision was filed in 2015 and the dispute was pending from the year 1987 onwards.
The Supreme Court finally held that the Waqf Tribunal is only an adjudicating authority over a dispute while the Waqf Board is expected to deal with any issue on 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 the right of a person to be a Mutawalli after all, it is the Mutawalli who does the job of administering and managing the Waqf," the bench held.
The Bench left all issues open for the high court to decide on merits.
UNI SNG CS