In a significant legal pronouncement, the Rajasthan High Court has reaffirmed that a mosque (Masjid), being a place designated for religious activities such as offering Namaz, unequivocally falls under the definition of 'Waqf' as per Section 3(r) of the Waqf Act, 1995. Consequently, any disputes pertaining to such properties are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Waqf Tribunal, as mandated by Section 85 of the same Act, which bars civil courts from adjudicating matters related to Waqf properties.
This ruling emerged from a civil revision petition where the petitioners challenged an order by the Civil Judge of Phalodi. The lower court had dismissed their application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), which sought the rejection of a plaint on the grounds of jurisdiction. The crux of the dispute centered around the Madina Zama Masjid, a mosque allegedly constructed with the financial contributions of the local Muslim community, who also undertook its maintenance and expansion over time.
The petitioners asserted ownership over the mosque property, contending that their title was legitimate. In response, the respondents (original plaintiffs) filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction to prevent the petitioners from interfering with the community's peaceful exercise of religious practices, including the offering of Namaz. The petitioners, in turn, filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, arguing that the civil court lacked jurisdiction and that the matter should be adjudicated by the Waqf Tribunal, as per the provisions of the Waqf Act.
The Civil Judge, however, dismissed this application, prompting the petitioners to escalate the matter to the High Court. Upon review, Justice Birendra Kumar emphasized that since a Masjid is inherently a place for religious observances, it qualifies as a Waqf property. Therefore, any disputes concerning such properties must be resolved exclusively by the Waqf Tribunal, in accordance with Section 85 of the Waqf Act, which explicitly bars civil courts from entertaining suits or proceedings related to Waqf matters.
This judgment aligns with precedents set by higher judiciary interpretations. The Supreme Court of India, in various rulings, has elucidated that the Waqf Tribunal possesses comprehensive jurisdiction over disputes pertaining to Waqf properties, irrespective of whether the property in question is admitted or disputed as Waqf. For instance, in the case of Rashid Wali Beg v. Farid Pindari, the Supreme Court clarified that Section 83(1) of the Waqf Act empowers the Tribunal to determine any dispute, question, or other matter relating to a Waqf or Waqf property, thereby reinforcing the exclusivity of the Tribunal's jurisdiction in such matters.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has underscored that the language of Section 85 of the Waqf Act unequivocally ousts the jurisdiction of civil courts in matters concerning Waqf properties. This legislative intent ensures that specialized Tribunals handle Waqf disputes, promoting uniformity and expertise in adjudication. The Rajasthan High Court's ruling is a testament to this legal framework, ensuring that disputes related to Waqf properties are addressed by the designated judicial bodies, thereby upholding the sanctity and purpose of the Waqf Act.
In essence, this judgment serves as a crucial reminder of the specialized legal pathways established for resolving Waqf-related disputes in India. It reinforces the principle that civil courts must refrain from intervening in matters specifically earmarked for Waqf Tribunals, thereby respecting the legislative scheme designed to handle such sensitive and specialized issues.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.