FACTS- In this case, both the litigating parties had claimed Mutawalliship of the Waqf. Ultimately, the Waqf Board held in favor of the appellant, declaring him a Mutawalli. Aggrieved by such an order, the opposite party approached the tribunal. Having no relief granted, the opposite party filed a revision before the High Court.

ISSUE- Which one has jurisdiction To Decide Issue Of Mutawalli? Whether it is Waqf Board or Waqf Tribunal?

While the High Court did not go into the merits of the case, it set aside the judgment by ruling that the Waqf Board did not have the jurisdiction to decide this issue. Thus, the tribunal directed matter to be decided afresh. Against this order, the appellants filed an appeal before the Top Court.

OBSERVATION- Court perused the relevant provisions under the Waqf Act of 1995. In this context, it may also be noted that Section 32(2)(g) of the Act states that one of the Board's functions is appointing and removing mutawallis. Supreme Court held that the original jurisdiction to decide the issue pertaining to Mutawalliship vests with the Waqf board and not the Waqf Tribunal.

Distinguishing the role of the Waqf Tribunal from that of the board, the Court said that the former is an adjudicatory authority while the latter deals with administration-related issues. The Court further observed that the Waqf Tribunal is deemed a civil court with the same powers as the Civil Court. In other words, a dispute can be tried like a suit by the Waqf Tribunal., the Court added.