A recent order by the Gujarat High Court is being projected in certain political circles as a “historic decision.” However, a careful reading of the judgment reveals that the matter is rooted in legal procedure rather than any political or communal breakthrough.
The Civil Revision Applications were filed by various Waqf institutions, including the Sunni Muslim Idgah Masjid Trust, Sarkhej Roza Committee, and Vadodara Sheher Masjid Sabha Trust. Justice J.C. Doshi dismissed the batch, stating the petitions were meritless and did not involve extraordinary policy-level issues.
Contrary to public narratives, this case was not about exempting Waqf properties from fees. Court fees have always been applicable to Waqf matters. The dispute focused strictly on how those fees should be calculated, specifically in cases involving:
Recovery of possession from tenants.
Removal of illegal encroachers
Recovery of mesne profits (illegal occupation charges).
The Waqf Trusts argued that since these are tenant-related disputes, the valuation should be based on annual rent. They pointed out that the Waqf Rules, 1998, lack clear guidelines for alternative valuation in such specific instances.
However, the Tribunal, and subsequently the High Court, ruled that the Trusts’ valuation method did not reflect the actual relief being claimed. Consequently, the Court upheld the order to pay the deficit court fees.
A crucial legal point raised during the proceedings was the status of Waqf land. Under law, Waqf properties are inalienable, they cannot be sold or transferred, as they are permanently dedicated to charitable or religious purposes.
The petitioners argued that because the property cannot be sold, calculating court fees based on anything other than the actual relief (the rent or dues) creates a massive financial burden. They contended that excessive fees could actually weaken the ability of Trusts to protect charitable land from illegal occupation.
The High Court emphasized that procedural law cannot be bypassed through technicalities. It rejected arguments that previous orders were invalid due to the composition of the Tribunal (a two-member bench vs. a three-member bench).
In the Sidhpur Group cases, the Court highlighted negligence by certain Waqf officers who failed to pay fees on time, causing suits to be dismissed. The Tribunal even ordered these officers to pay litigation expenses out of their own pockets, a detail that has been largely ignored in the “historic” narrative.
The Need for Uniform Laws: This litigation has brought a broader policy question to light. If the government-appointed Waqf Board is the statutory custodian, why is such a heavy procedural and financial burden placed on individual charitable trusts? This lack of clarity is a common issue across several Indian tribunals, including:
- Waqf Tribunals
- National Green Tribunal (NGT)
- Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)
- National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT)
If uniform rules for court fees and procedures existed, charitable funds would not be wasted on technical disputes, and the justice system would remain consistent.
The scope of this judgment was narrow and procedural. The Court did not create new laws or curtail religious rights; it simply affirmed that benevolent laws must still follow the Code of Civil Procedure.
The irony of claiming “historic credit” for this order is that the lack of uniform laws and procedural ambiguity remains a legislative responsibility. When a routine judicial clarification is turned into a political trophy, the nuances of the law are lost. In this case, the judgment was about the rules of the court, not the politics of the land.
