The Supreme Court recently ruled that the Waqf board, not the Waqf Tribunal, holds the original jurisdiction to address matters concerning Mutawalliship. Clarifying the distinct roles, the Court emphasized that the Tribunal serves as an adjudicatory body, whereas the board primarily handles administrative matters.

“After all, the Waqf Tribunal is only an adjudicating authority over a dispute while the Waqf Board is expected to deal with any issue pertaining to administration. The power of superintendence cannot be confined to routine affairs of a Waqf but it includes a situation where a dispute arises while managing the property and that would certainly include a right of a person to be a Mutawalli after all, it is the Mutawalli who does the job of administering and managing the Waqf.,” stated Justices M.M Sundresh and S.V.N. Bhatti.

Additionally, the Court noted that the Waqf Tribunal is considered equivalent to a civil court, possessing identical powers. 

The essence of the issue lies in both parties asserting Mutawalliship over the Waqf. Eventually, the Waqf Board ruled in favor of the appellant, recognizing them as the Mutawalli. Dissatisfied with this decision, the opposing party turned to the tribunal for recourse. Finding no resolution there, they subsequently lodged a revision petition with the High Court.

The High Court, without delving into the case's substance, overturned the judgment, stating that the Waqf Board lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. Consequently, the tribunal was instructed to reexamine the issue. Dissatisfied with this decision, the appellants lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court.

Initially, the Court examined the pertinent sections of the Waqf Act of 1995. It's worth mentioning that Section 32(2)(g) of the Act delineates one of the functions of the Board as the appointment and dismissal of mutawallis.

Elaborating, the Court said: “The word 'competent authority' as mentioned in the definition clause contained in Section 3(i) makes the position further clear that it is the Waqf Board which has got the jurisdiction and not the Waqf Tribunal.”

Considering this provision, the Court concluded that the issue couldn't be referred back to the Tribunal since the Waqf Board is the appropriate authority for resolving the current dispute. Consequently, while overturning the challenged order, the Court instructed the High Court to adjudicate the matter based on its merits.

Given the prolonged duration of the dispute dating back to 1987, the Court urged the High Court to prioritize the hearing and swiftly resolve the matter at the earliest opportunity.

Case Title: S V CHERIYAKOYA THANGAL v. S.V P POOKOYA & ORS., CIVIL APPEAL NO.4629/2024