Waqf Tribunal akin to Civil Court, prescribed court fees applicable: Gujarat High Court
The petitioners had challenged the decision of the Waqf Tribunal of rejecting their individual plaints after their failure to “rectify the valuation of suits and pay the deficit court fees” within a stipulated time.
5 min readVadodaraUpdated: Dec 18, 2025 08:48 AM IST
The court order held that as per the amended Gujarat State Waqf Rules, 2023, the Tribunal shall not be rendered coram non judice if another member other than the Chairman is absent.
Stating that the Waqf Tribunal was akin to a Civil Court and thus justified to pass orders to rectify the valuation of suits and pay the deficit court fees, the Gujarat High Court on Wednesday dismissed over 100 clubbed Civil Revision Applications filed by Waqf institutions, challenging respective individual orders of the Tribunal rejecting their individual plaints due to the “valuation and court fees” calculated as per the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code.
Justice JC Doshi of the Gujarat High Court was hearing the petitioners, divided into three groups – the Sidhpur Group, Sarkhej Group and the Vadodara Group – who had originally sought recovery of possession of Waqf property from tenants or illegal encroachers along with ancillary relief including ‘mesne profits’ (recovery of losses caused by wrongful possession of property with encroacher). The petitioners had challenged the decision of the Waqf Tribunal of rejecting their individual plaints after their failure to “rectify the valuation of suits and pay the deficit court fees” within a stipulated time.
While passing a 57-page judgement on Wednesday, the HC noted that the petitioners had not challenged the first order passed by the Waqf Tribunal directing the correction of the valuation of the suit for the purpose of the court fee, until their pleas were rejected by the tribunal as the fees had not been paid. The petitioners had contended that the “foundational order” of the Tribunal, delivered in the cases of the Sidhpur group had “incurable jurisdictional defect” as it had been passed by the Tribunal without the statutory quorum of three members and therefore, the subsequent orders of the Tribunal rejecting other pleas must also be set aside.
Considering the submissions by the petitioner as well as the State Government, represented by Government Pleader GH Virk, the court delved into the question of law if the Waqf Tribunal was equal to a Civil Court and thus governed by the provisions of CPC, which could only be applicable in case of “suit proceedings”. The petitioners had contended that under the provisions of the Waqf Act, the proceedings of the Tribunal are styled as “applications”. The Government Pleader had submitted that the proceedings before the Waqf Tribunal involve restoration of property to the Waqf institutions and “merely describing such proceedings as an “application” cannot absolve the Waqf from the statutory obligation of paying court fees.”
The court judgement states, “The contention (of the petitioners is that) since the Waqf Act does not employ the expressions ‘plaint’ or ‘suit’, the provisions of the Court Fees Act are not attracted… (The Government Pleader)further submitted that prior to the amendment of the Waqf Act, claims relating to recovery of possession of leased Waqf properties were required to be instituted before the Civil Court, and at the relevant point of time, such proceedings indisputably attracted payment of court fees…”
The court also rejected the contention of the petitioners that as per section 83(6) of the Waqf Act, CPC is not applicable to the Tribunal proceedings and Waqf Rules do not provide for payment of court fees.
In its judgement the HC stated that Sections of the Waqf Act “unequivocally” provide that the Tribunal “shall be deemed to be a Civil Court and shall exercise the same powers, as well as discharge the same duties, as are vested in a Civil Court under the CPC while trying a suit or executing a decree or order”. The court stated that although the Waqf Act “stipulates that the Tribunal may regulate its own procedure, as may be prescribed, provided such procedure is consistent with the provisions of the CPC” and that “a decision rendered by the Tribunal shall have the force and effect of a decree of a Civil Court”.
Story continues below this ad
The HC said, “It is clear that in deciding any dispute relating to the procedure specially provided by the act i.e. Waqf Act or the Waqf rules the tribunal shall be guided by provision contained in the CPC as far as possible…. the provisions of the Gujarat State Waqf Rules, 2023, make it pellucidly clear that the provisions of the CPC, as well as the Gujarat High Court Rules, are applicable in addition to the Waqf Rules, 1998…”
Dismissing the petitions as being “devoid of any merit”, the HC said, “In view of foregoing reasons, this Court does not discern any palpable illegality, jurisdictional infirmity, or error of law in the impugned orders warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.”
The court also rejected the submission of the petitioners pertaining to matters of “Sidhpur group” that had contended that the initial order passed by the Waqf Tribunal of rejecting pleas should be declared ‘coram non judice’ (lacking proper authority) due to the fact that it was passed by only the Chairman and one member, as against the Waqf Act provision that prescribes that the Tribunal must consist of three members. The court order held that as per the amended Gujarat State Waqf Rules, 2023, the Tribunal shall not be rendered coram non judice if another member other than the Chairman is absent.
Aditi Raja is an Assistant Editor with The Indian Express, stationed in Vadodara, Gujarat, with over 20 years in the field. She has been reporting from the region of Central Gujarat and Narmada district for this newspaper since 2013, which establishes her as a highly Authoritative and Trustworthy source on regional politics, administration, and critical socio-economic and environmental issues.
Expertise:
Core Authority & Specialization: Her reporting is characterized by a comprehensive grasp of the complex factors shaping Central Gujarat, which comprises a vast tribal population, including:
Politics and Administration: In-depth analysis of dynamics within factions of political parties and how it affects the affairs in the region, visits of national leaders making prominent statements, and government policy decisions impacting the population on ground.
Crucial Regional Projects: She consistently reports on the socio-economic and political impact of infrastructure projects in the region, especially the Statue of Unity, the Sardar Sarovar Project on the Narmada River, the Mumbai-Ahmedabad High Speed Rail bullet train project as well as the National Highway infrastructure.
Social Justice and Human Rights: Her reporting offers deep coverage of sensitive human-interest topics, including gender, crime, and tribal issues. Her reports cover legal proceedings from various district courts as well as the Gujarat High Court (e.g., the Bilkis Bano case remission, POCSO court orders, Public Interest Litigations), the plight of tribal communities, and broader social conflicts (e.g., Kheda flogging case).
Local Impact & Disaster Reporting: Excels in documenting the immediate impact of events on communities, such as the political and civic fallout of the Vadodara floods, the subsequent public anger, and the long-delayed river redevelopment projects, Harni Boat Tragedy, Air India crash, bringing out a blend of stories from the investigations as well as human emotions.
Special Interest Beat: She tracks incidents concerning Non-Resident Gujaratis (NRIs) including crime and legal battles abroad, issues of illegal immigration and deportations, as well as social events connecting the local Gujarati experience to the global diaspora. ... Read More
