Wakf Tribunal, not Collector, must decide whether land listed as wakf is wakf property: Supreme Court

The dispute concerned the title and character of the land—whether it belonged to the Gram Panchayat as shamilat deh land or constituted wakf property of the Punjab Wakf Board.

The High Court held that the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Collector under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, while Section 13 barred the jurisdiction of civil courts.

Respondent No. 4, claiming to be a tenant of the Wakf Board, sought suspension of ejectment orders passed by the District Development and Panchayat Officer and the Director, Rural Development and Panchayats; an interim direction required him to deposit ₹10,000 per acre for use and occupation, and this Court subsequently directed maintenance of status quo.

Before the Supreme Court, the Wakf Board produced a State Government notification dated 19 September 1970 listing the disputed property among Sunni wakfs under the Central Wakf Act, 1954.

1. Whether the dispute regarding whether the property is wakf property falls within the jurisdiction of a Wakf Tribunal under Section 6 of the Wakf Act, 1995, notwithstanding the jurisdiction conferred on the Collector under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961?

2. Whether the bar under Section 85 of the Wakf Act, 1995 excludes the jurisdiction of the Collector and other authorities where the disputed property is included in the list of wakfs?

3. Whether, if the property is not included in the list of wakfs, the question whether it is shamilat deh land must be determined by the Collector under the Regulation Act, 1961?

Section 6 of the Wakf Act, 1995 empowers the Wakf Tribunal to determine whether a property specified in the list of wakfs is wakf property, and makes the Tribunal’s decision final; Section 6(5) bars institution or commencement of proceedings in any court concerning such questions.

Section 85 of the Wakf Act bars the jurisdiction of civil courts, revenue courts and other authorities in matters relating to wakf property or matters required to be determined by the Tribunal.

The expression “list of wakfs” includes not only lists published under Section 5(2), but also entries in the register of wakfs maintained under Section 37, pursuant to Section 3(k).

Accordingly, the Collector’s jurisdiction under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 is ousted where the dispute concerns property included in the list of wakfs. If the property is not so included, the question whether it is shamilat deh land remains for determination by the Collector under the Regulation Act, whose provisions also exclude civil-court jurisdiction.

The Court also referred to Habib Alladin v. Mohammed Ahmed, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 119.

The Supreme Court held that the foundational question was not merely whether the Gram Panchayat could seek ejectment, but whether the disputed land was wakf property.

Since the Wakf Board produced a 19 September 1970 notification purporting to include the property in the list of Sunni wakfs, the statutory mechanism under Section 6 of the Wakf Act was attracted.

Consequently, the Tribunal, rather than the Collector acting under the Regulation Act, was required to first determine whether the property was wakf property.

The Court directed the Tribunal to verify the notification and ascertain whether the specific disputed property was in fact included in it. Only if the property was not included in the wakf list would the matter revert to the Collector for determination of its status as shamilat deh land.

The parties were permitted to approach the competent Wakf Tribunal for determination of whether the disputed property was wakf property, and the Tribunal was directed to specifically examine the 19 September 1970 notification before adjudicating the dispute.

If the property was not covered by the notification or wakf list, the issue was to be considered by the Collector under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961.

Pending applications, if any, were disposed of.