Supreme Court Delivers Landmark Ruling on Mosque Status for Non-Wakf Properties
In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India has clarified that the offering of prayers by Muslims on a premises, which is not included in the official list of auqaf, cannot confer upon it the legal character of a mosque. The apex court further ruled that the Wakf tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain suits seeking to declare a place as a mosque if it is not situated on wakf land.
Hyderabad Dispute: The Case Background
The order emerged from a contentious case involving the ground floor of an apartment located on prime land in Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. It was claimed that this space had been functioning as a mosque since 2008. However, in 2021, the landowner and the apartment builder restricted access to the premises, sparking a legal dispute.
One Mohammed Ahmed had filed a suit before the Wakf tribunal, seeking to restrain Habib Alladin and others from interfering with or hindering him and other worshippers (musallies) from visiting the Mahmood Habib Masjid and Islamic Centre, situated on the ground floor of Mahmood Habib Apartments in Banjara Hills.
Legal Proceedings and Judicial History
When the tribunal entertained the suit, the plot owner moved the Telangana High Court, arguing that the building plan made no mention of the disputed area as a mosque. Consequently, they contended that the tribunal should not have taken up the case. The High Court, however, rejected this plea, leading to further appeals.
This issue of mosques established on non-wakf land has engaged the Supreme Court's attention in over a dozen cases over the past three decades, with the court previously taking divergent views on the matter.
Supreme Court's Analysis and Ruling
After a thorough analysis of the spectrum of judgments, a bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and K Vinod Chandran provided a clear interpretation. The bench stated, "A reading of Section 6 and 7 of the Wakf Act, 1995 makes it 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, inheres in the tribunal only if the particular property is specified as wakf property in the ‘list of auqaf'."
Examining the specifics of the Hyderabad case, the bench noted, "A bare reading of the plaint would indicate that neither is the property specified in the ‘list of auqaf' as published in Chapter II nor registered under Chapter V. Hence, the decision as to whether the property is a wakf property or not cannot be decided by the Tribunal since the property is not one specified in the ‘list of auqaf'. This is a mandatory requirement under Section 6(1) and Section 7(1) of the Wakf Act of 1995 to approach the Tribunal."
Exclusion of 'Wakf by User' Consideration
The bench also addressed the concept of ‘wakf by user', which is currently under adjudication in the Supreme Court as part of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 2025. In light of this, the court refrained from considering whether the property could be deemed a ‘wakf by user', stating that the question remains unresolved. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside both the tribunal's order assuming jurisdiction and the High Court order that had affirmed it.
Implications of the Judgment
This ruling underscores the importance of formal registration and listing under the Wakf Act for properties to be legally recognized as mosques or wakf properties. It provides clarity on jurisdictional limits and may influence future disputes involving religious properties on non-wakf lands across India.
