Supreme Court Rules on Wakf Property Dispute: Punjab Wakf Board vs. Sham Singh & Teja Singh

The Supreme Court of India, in Punjab Wakf Board vs. Sham Singh Harike & Teja Singh, addressed critical issues regarding the jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal and Civil Courts in matters involving Wakf property. The case revolved around disputes where the Punjab Wakf Board sought eviction and injunction orders against individuals who claimed rights over the properties in question. The Court clarified that disputes about the title of Wakf property should be decided by the Wakf Tribunal, whereas matters of eviction and possession belong to the jurisdiction of Civil Courts.

Background of the Case

The Punjab Wakf Board filed two separate civil suits involving properties in Ludhiana, Punjab:

• One case involved Sham Singh Harike, who was in possession of 269 kanals 7 marlas of agricultural land that had been leased by the Wakf Board.
• The second case was against Teja Singh, who occupied 29 kanals 9 marlas of land previously leased from the Wakf Board.

The Board alleged that both respondents had ceased paying rent and had illegally retained possession of the lands. It sought eviction orders and permanent injunctions to prevent any changes in the nature of the properties.

Respondents’ Defense

Both respondents contested the maintainability of the suits before the Wakf Tribunal, raising the following arguments:

• The Wakf Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over non-Muslims.
• The properties in question were not Wakf properties, and the Board had no rightful claim.
• The title of the Board over these properties was disputed.
• Previous civil suits had upheld their possession rights.

Lower Court and High Court Decisions

Wakf Tribunal’s Findings

The Wakf Tribunal ruled in favor of the Board in both cases, holding that:

• The properties in question were Wakf properties.
• The Board had the right to seek possession and prevent any unauthorized changes to the land.
• The jurisdiction of the Tribunal extended to all disputes related to Wakf properties.

Punjab and Haryana High Court’s Intervention

The respondents challenged the Tribunal’s ruling in the High Court. The High Court overturned the Tribunal’s decision, ruling that:

• Since the respondents were non-Muslims, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.
• Under the precedent set in Ramesh Gobindram vs. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf, eviction matters concerning tenants of Wakf properties must be decided by Civil Courts.
• The suits should be presented before the appropriate Civil Court.

Supreme Court’s Observations

1. Jurisdiction of Wakf Tribunal vs. Civil Court

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal is limited to issues that arise under the Wakf Act, 1995. It ruled:

“The bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 85 applies only to matters that are required by the Act to be determined by the Tribunal. If a dispute does not fall within the scope of the Wakf Act, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court remains intact.”

2. Suit Against Sham Singh Harike: Tribunal’s Jurisdiction

Since the respondent, Sham Singh, had denied that the property in question was a Wakf property, the Supreme Court held that this matter fell within the jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal. It noted:

“Where the question of whether a property is Wakf or not arises, the Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction under Sections 6 and 7 of the Wakf Act. The High Court erred in holding otherwise.”

Thus, the Supreme Court reinstated the Tribunal’s ruling and set aside the High Court’s judgment.

3. Suit Against Teja Singh: Civil Court’s Jurisdiction

In contrast, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s ruling in Teja Singh’s case, stating that since the dispute primarily concerned eviction and possession, it should be adjudicated by the Civil Court. The Court cited the principle laid down in Ramesh Gobindram, stating:

“Eviction of a tenant from a Wakf property is not a dispute arising under the Wakf Act but a matter of landlord-tenant law, which must be decided by the Civil Court.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court issued the following orders:

• The High Court’s ruling in Sham Singh Harike’s case was set aside, and the Tribunal’s decision was reinstated.
• The High Court’s ruling in Teja Singh’s case was upheld, and the case was remanded to the Civil Court.
• The principle that Wakf property disputes concerning title must be decided by the Tribunal, whereas eviction matters must be handled by Civil Courts, was reaffirmed.

Key Takeaways

• Tribunal vs. Civil Court Jurisdiction: The Tribunal has jurisdiction over disputes concerning the nature of Wakf property, but Civil Courts retain jurisdiction over eviction matters.
• Non-Muslim Parties Can Be Subject to Tribunal’s Jurisdiction: If the dispute involves the title of a Wakf property, even non-Muslims must litigate before the Tribunal.
• Landlord-Tenant Disputes Must Be Handled by Civil Courts: Eviction suits filed by Wakf Boards are subject to the same legal principles as any other tenancy case.
• Precedents Matter: The Court reaffirmed the applicability of Ramesh Gobindram vs. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf in eviction cases.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Punjab Wakf Board vs. Sham Singh & Teja Singh provides much-needed clarity on the jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal and Civil Courts. The decision reinforces the legal framework governing Wakf property disputes and ensures that title-related questions are handled by the Tribunal, while tenancy matters remain within the purview of Civil Courts.

Petitioner Name: Punjab Wakf Board.
Respondent Name: Sham Singh Harike & Teja Singh.
Judgment By: Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice K.M. Joseph.
Place Of Incident: Ludhiana, Punjab.
Judgment Date: 07-02-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Punjab Wakf Board vs Sham Singh Harike & Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 07-02-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Landlord-Tenant Disputes
See all petitions in Specific Performance
See all petitions in Judgment by Ashok Bhushan
See all petitions in Judgment by K.M. Joseph
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments February 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category