Explained: What is Waqf by User?
_vb_52_vb_41.jpeg)
The Supreme Court on Thursday resumed hearing petitions that have challenged the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025, with key concerns raised about the removal of the concept of ‘waqf by user’. This clause, which has been part of Waqf property recognition in India for decades, was omitted in the latest amendment, raising fears that thousands of longstanding religious properties may lose their legal status.
Appearing for the Central government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta defended the new amendment, saying there was growing concern over large portions of land being declared as Waqf without proper documentation. He said such declarations had created confusion and controversy in many parts of the country.
However, the Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) expressed strong reservations about the deletion of ‘waqf by user’. On Wednesday, the bench had clearly warned that the change in law could impact the status of thousands of properties that have been used for religious or charitable purposes for decades—especially those in villages and older urban areas where formal land documents were never created.
During Thursday’s hearing, the Court granted seven days’ time to the Centre to file a detailed preliminary response on the matter.
"Genuine Properties Will Be Affected Too": Supreme Court’s Concern
Raising a crucial question, the CJI asked the Centre, “How will you register such waqfs by user? What documents will they have? It will lead to undoing something. Yes, there is some misuse. But there are genuine ones also.”
The bench highlighted that many waqf properties have been recognised by courts based on long-standing use, not on paper deeds. It added that any move to undo this recognition—by de-notifying such properties—would not be right while the matter is still being heard.
The top court made it clear that waqf properties already declared by courts—whether through written deeds or based on usage—should not be touched until the challenge to the Waqf Amendment Act 2025 is fully examined.
What is ‘Waqf by User’?
In this context, the idea of ‘Waqf by user’ becomes important to understand.
‘Waqf by user’ refers to properties that may not have formal Waqf deeds or registration but have been in continuous public use for religious or charitable purposes—such as mosques, dargahs, graveyards, madrassas, or wells—often for several generations. These properties are treated as Waqf based on usage, not documents.
This concept allowed many old religious properties, especially in rural and semi-urban India, to be protected under Waqf laws, even if no official records were available. The logic was that community usage and religious practice over time was enough proof of the property's nature.
But the Waqf Amendment Act 2025 proposes to remove this recognition, stating that only those waqfs that are properly documented should be registered. This has now led to a legal challenge in the Supreme Court.
Legal Backing in India
The concept of Waqf by user is recognised under The Waqf Act, 1995, and earlier under The Mussalman Waqf Validating Acts during British rule.
Under the Waqf Act, 1995, the State Waqf Boards are allowed to identify, survey and register Waqf properties. While some Waqf properties have formal written deeds, others are registered based on field surveys, public evidence, and usage patterns.
This is particularly important in villages and older towns, where many mosques, dargahs, and graveyards were built centuries ago without formal registration.
Examples of Waqf by User
A small mosque in a village has been used for namaz for over 100 years, but there is no official document showing who donated the land. It is still considered Waqf by user.
A piece of land is being used as a Muslim graveyard for decades. Even if there is no title deed in the Waqf Board's name, the Board can register it as Waqf by user.
A dargah visited by people for generations without any formal land record can be listed as Waqf by user during official surveys.
How is ‘Waqf by User’ Recognised?
The process usually involves the following steps:
Waqf Survey Commissioner conducts a detailed survey in each state.
During the survey, locals and community leaders are consulted.
Properties that have been in religious or charitable use over time are identified.
These are registered under the State Waqf Board, even if no one comes forward as the donor.
The property is then protected under Waqf law.
The registered name in revenue or municipal records may still show as “government land” or “public land”, but once it is declared Waqf by user, it cannot be sold, transferred, or misused.
Why the Controversy?
The Centre argues that many properties have been wrongly declared as Waqf under the ‘waqf by user’ category, leading to land ownership disputes and encroachments. Critics, however, say the removal of this clause could wipe out legal recognition of genuine Waqf properties, especially in areas where such assets were created generations ago without written donations.
The Supreme Court’s current observation suggests that the court may lean towards a more balanced approach—recognising that while there may be misuse, the removal of ‘waqf by user’ entirely would also harm legitimate religious institutions and community properties.
What Next?
The Supreme Court has asked the Centre to clarify how it plans to deal with such properties in the absence of ‘waqf by user’ recognition. The next steps in the hearing will determine whether the amendment stands or whether changes will be suggested to protect historically used religious lands.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
HC says no coercive action against Sonu Nigam over Kannada song row, allows video appearance
Bengaluru, May 15 (PTI): The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday directed that no coercive steps be taken against singer Sonu Nigam until the next date of hearing, in connection with a recent criminal case registered against him for allegedly making offensive remarks during a concert.The court also permitted the singer to appear via video conferencing for recording his statement, if required by the investigating officer (IO). Alternatively, if the IO insists on a physical appearance, the court said the officer could visit Nigam, with the singer bearing the associated expenses.
The case stems from a complaint lodged after an incident at a concert, where some Kannadiga fans had requested Nigam to sing in Kannada. The singer allegedly took offence to the tone of the request and reportedly remarked, “This is why Pahalgam happened,” drawing a controversial comparison to the April 22 terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir.
During the hearing, Nigam’s counsel, Dhananjay Vidyapati, argued that the complaint was filed solely for publicity and that the alleged offence of public mischief under Section 505 of the IPC was not made out.
He also said it was a solitary incident, the concert proceeded smoothly, and the complaint was filed by a third party.
The state counsel, however, maintained that Nigam’s remarks needed to be examined in the course of investigation to determine intent.
“Whether the comments were intentional or not cannot be adjudicated under Section 482 (CrPC). He has not cooperated with the investigation. He could have at least said he was busy,” the State submitted.
Arguing against special privileges, the State’s counsel added, “A person who does not respect due process of law cannot be given benefit under 482… He is not a normal man, but that is precisely why he should not have made such a statement.”
When the court asked why Nigam’s statement could not be recorded virtually or even at his residence, the State objected, saying that would amount to giving the singer “too much convenience.”
Responding to concerns raised by Nigam’s counsel about the media spectacle that would follow a physical appearance, the court observed: “If you want physical appearance, you go to his place and record his statement. He could bear the expenses.”
The court recorded the State’s submission that no coercive steps would be taken if Nigam cooperated with the investigation. It stayed the filing of any final report in the case until the next date of hearing.
