-
by sayum
08 April 2026 2:47 PM
In a significant ruling Orissa High Court held that writ petitions challenging the orders of the Waqf Tribunal are maintainable under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, notwithstanding the provision of Section 83(9) of the Waqf Act, 1995, which provides for a revision before the High Court. The Division Bench of Justice B.P. Routray and Justice Chittaranjan Dash ruled that “the nomenclature of the petition as a writ is immaterial; the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be ousted.”
The case arose from a challenge to a 2014 judgment of the Waqf Tribunal, Odisha, which declared certain suit lands in Bhadrak District as Waqf property and directed the correction of revenue records in favor of the plaintiff. While the petitioners argued that the land is communal property of the villagers, the opposite parties raised a preliminary objection that only a revision under Section 83(9) proviso of the Waqf Act was maintainable and not a writ petition.
However, the High Court dismissed the objection, holding that the substance of the petition—being supervisory in nature—falls squarely within the scope of Article 227, irrespective of the label given to the petition.
“High Court Does Not Sit in Appeal over Waqf Tribunal; But Can Examine Correctness, Legality, or Propriety of Its Orders Under Article 227” – Nomenclature Irrelevant, Holds Orissa High Court
The Court emphatically ruled that while the High Court does not act as an appellate forum under the Waqf Act, it nonetheless retains its jurisdiction to scrutinize the correctness, legality, and propriety of Waqf Tribunal orders under the constitutional scheme. Drawing from the Supreme Court’s authoritative pronouncement in Kiran Devi v. Bihar State Sunni Waqf Board [(2021) 15 SCC 15], the Bench reiterated:
“The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India cannot be curtailed... The nomenclature of the proceedings as a petition under Article 226 or a petition under Article 227 is wholly inconsequential and immaterial.”
The Court clarified that the proviso to Section 83(9) of the Waqf Act is an enabling provision that recognizes the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court, not one that limits it.
Communal Land or Waqf Property? Tribunal Declared Muslim Graveyard and Idgah as Waqf Land, Villagers Disputed
The underlying dispute concerns lands in Mouza-Mustafapur, Bhadrak district, recorded in Khata Nos. 613 and 614, which were declared as Waqf property by the Tribunal based on a 1978 Gazette Notification. The plaintiff, Sayed Mansur Saheb Peer, claimed that the land was used as Peerstan, Kabarstan, and Idgah for decades by the Muslim community, but was erroneously recorded as "Sarbasadharan Khata" (common land) during the Major Settlement process.
Upon discovery of the mistaken entry in February 2014, the plaintiff approached the Waqf Tribunal under Section 7 of the Waqf Act, which, after adjudication, ruled in his favor and ordered correction of the ROR (Record of Rights).
The petitioners—residents of the same village—challenged the declaration, claiming communal rights over the land as villagers and alleged that the Tribunal’s judgment was obtained through suppression of material facts.
Opposite Parties’ Objection: Only a Revision Is Maintainable Under Waqf Act, Not a Writ – Court Rejects Argument
The Waqf Board and Opposite Party No. 1 objected to the petitions primarily on the ground that Section 83(9) of the Waqf Act, 1995 permits only a revision, not a writ petition. They contended that the High Court, acting under the Waqf Act, could not entertain a writ petition in the guise of supervisory jurisdiction.
Rejecting the argument, the Bench cited Kiran Devi, where the Supreme Court decisively held:
“When a petition is filed against an order of the Wakf Tribunal before the High Court, the High Court exercises the jurisdiction under Article 227... The nomenclature of the title of the petition is immaterial.”
The Court also invoked L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India [(1997) 3 SCC 261], which held that “jurisdiction of the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 cannot be ousted even by constitutional amendment, let alone by statute.”
Procedural Clarification: Article 227 Petitions Must Be Registered as Civil Miscellaneous Petitions (CMPs), Not Writs
While upholding the maintainability of the petitions, the Court made an important procedural direction regarding the correct categorization of petitions. Referring to Rule 5 of Chapter-XV, Part-II of the Orissa High Court Rules, 1948, the Court noted:
“Applications under Article 227 of the Constitution arising out of a Suit or a First Appeal shall be registered as Civil Miscellaneous Petition ‘C.M.P.’...”
Accordingly, the Registry was directed to re-register the two writ petitions as CMPs and place them before the appropriate Single Judge Bench, as per the Orissa High Court’s internal rules.
The Court clarified:
“While holding that challenge by the petitioners in these writ petitions is maintainable, we further direct the Registry to register both the writ petitions with nomenclature of ‘CMP’ and place before the appropriate assigned Bench.”
High Court Affirms Its Supervisory Jurisdiction Over Waqf Tribunal Orders – Procedural Label Cannot Defeat Constitutional Remedies
The Orissa High Court has, through this judgment, laid down an authoritative precedent on the maintainability of writ petitions against Waqf Tribunal decisions, reaffirming the constitutional supremacy of the High Court’s jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227.
In doing so, it has rejected a restrictive interpretation of Section 83(9) of the Waqf Act, and recognized that substance prevails over form in adjudication of such cases.
As the Court aptly observed: “The petition styled as one under Article 226 would not bar the High Court to exercise jurisdiction under the Act and/or under Article 227 of the Constitution. The jurisdiction of the High Court... is wholly inconsequential and immaterial.”
Date of Decision: September 1, 2025
