A recent ruling by the Supreme Court of India has clarified that the expiry of leases or other arrangements of Wakf properties, by the efflux of time or their valid terminations in the past, cannot be interpreted as encroachment. The two-judge Bench consisting of Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Dipankar Datta made this observation in a significant judgment.

Judicial Background and Case Details

The case revolved around a property leased by P.M. Mammu Haji in 1916, before the enactment of the Wakf Act. The premises housed the “Norman Printing Bureau” and had been the subject of a private trust dispute. The Appellants, who were in possession of the property, faced eviction proceedings initiated by the Wakf Board.

Eviction Proceedings and Jurisdiction Issues

The Kerala High Court had initially ruled that the Wakf Tribunal lacked jurisdiction and that the Appellants could only be evicted through a civil proceeding before a competent civil court. However, the Wakf Act was later amended, leading to confusion regarding the eviction process. During the pendency of the case, a criminal complaint was filed, alleging encroachment against the Appellants under Section 52A of the Wakf Act.

Supreme Court’s Observations and Decision

The Supreme Court emphasized that Section 52A is a penal provision with a potential prison sentence of up to two years. The Court noted that the Appellants had been in possession of the property even before the wakf was created and the enactment of the Wakf Act. The Court also referred to the constitutional right under Article 20(1), which prohibits retrospective application of penal statutes.

Based on these considerations, the Supreme Court concluded that Section 52A cannot cover cases where leases of wakf properties had expired in the past, and the tenants or lessees were in physical possession of the property and facing civil proceedings for eviction when the amendment of 2013 came into force.

Implications and Legal Clarity

This ruling brings much-needed legal clarity for individuals facing eviction from Wakf properties due to expired leases or disputed ownership. It ensures that such occupants cannot be treated as encroachers under Section 52A of the Wakf Act, provided they were in possession and facing civil proceedings at the time of the amendment. The judgment serves as an important precedent, upholding the principle that individuals should not be punished for conduct that was not an offense when committed.

This Supreme Court ruling safeguards the rights of individuals occupying Wakf properties and provides a fair and just approach to resolving disputes over possession and eviction.

Frequently Asked Questions

• Who are the judges in the case mentioned?

  The judges in the mentioned case are Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Dipankar Datta.

• What is the background of the case?

  The case involves a dispute over premises leased by P.M. Mammu Haji before the Wakf Act came into force. There are allegations of a wakf being created, subsequent legal proceedings, rent increase, and eviction attempts against the occupants.

• What were the findings of the Kerala High Court?

  The Kerala High Court ruled that the Wakf Tribunal lacked jurisdiction and the Appellants could only be evicted through a civil proceeding before a competent civil court.

• What did the Apex Court conclude?

  The Apex Court concluded that Section 52A of the Wakf Act, which is a penal provision, cannot cover cases where leases of wakf properties had expired in the past and where the tenant or lessee was, at the time the amendment of 2013 came into force, in physical possession and facing civil proceedings for eviction.