In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court has clarified the jurisdictional reach of Waqf Tribunals, stating that these tribunals can only adjudicate disputes related to properties officially recognized under the Waqf Act. This means that a property must be listed in the "list of auqaf" or registered under the Act for a Waqf Tribunal to have the authority to hear a claim regarding it. The ruling emphasizes that civil courts retain jurisdiction unless properties are specifically notified as Waqf properties.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and K Vinod Chandran, delivered this verdict while overturning a Telangana High Court order. The case before the High Court concerned a property that was not registered under the Waqf Act. The Supreme Court found that the Waqf Tribunal lacked the jurisdiction to even consider the nature of the property because it wasn't listed in the official auqaf list or registered under the Waqf Act. The Supreme Court emphasized that the Waqf Act does not wholly exclude civil courts' jurisdiction, allowing them to entertain suits or proceedings unless a property is specifically listed as Waqf under the Act.

The Supreme Court's decision underscores that the jurisdiction of Waqf Tribunals is conditional and not all-encompassing. Sections 6(1) and 7(1) of the Waqf Act, 1995, stipulate that a property must be listed in the official auqaf list before the Tribunal can be approached. Without this prerequisite, the Tribunal cannot assume jurisdiction.

The background of the case involved a property dispute in Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. A ground floor of an apartment was claimed to be a mosque since 2008, but the owner of the land and the builder restricted access to it in 2021. A suit was filed before the Waqf Tribunal seeking to prevent any obstruction to those visiting the "Mahmood Habib Masjid and Islamic Centre". The owner of the plot challenged the tribunal's jurisdiction in the Telangana High Court, arguing that the building plan did not designate the disputed area as a mosque. The High Court rejected this challenge, but the Supreme Court ultimately reversed this decision.

The Supreme Court clarified that the offering of prayers by Muslims at premises not included in the list of auqaf does not automatically give it the character of a mosque. The court stated that unless the mosque stood over waqf land, the Waqf Tribunal could not entertain a suit to declare the place a mosque.

This ruling reinforces the importance of official recognition and registration for properties to fall under the purview of Waqf Tribunals. It clarifies that these tribunals are specialized bodies with limited jurisdiction, and civil courts remain the primary forum for resolving property disputes unless the property is explicitly identified as a Waqf property. The Supreme Court set aside both the tribunal order and the High Court order affirming it.