Wakf management scheme power lies with the Board, and tribunal orders without jurisdiction require reconsideration.

The Wakf Act is a self-contained code and the power to frame a scheme for management of wakf property is statutorily vested in the Board under Section 32, not in the Tribunal constituted under Section 83. A statutory tribunal cannot assume a function assigned to another authority, so the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to frame the scheme. The Tribunal also failed to examine the limitation objection, analyse the evidence, and properly address whether the property could be treated as wakf by dedication or long user. The orders of the Tribunal and High Court were set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to frame a scheme for the management of the wakf property under the Wakf Act, 1995; (ii) whether the matter required fresh consideration in view of the Tribunal's failure to examine the jurisdictional objections and the relevant evidence.

Issue (i): Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to frame a scheme for the management of the wakf property under the Wakf Act, 1995.

Analysis: The Wakf Act is a self-contained code and the powers relating to settlement of schemes of management are statutorily vested in the Board under Section 32 of the Wakf Act, 1995. The Tribunal is an adjudicatory body constituted under Section 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995, and no provision was shown conferring upon it the power to frame a scheme. Where a statute creates different authorities for different functions, each authority must act within its allotted sphere and cannot assume a power that belongs to another statutory body.

Conclusion: The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to frame a scheme; that function lay with the Board and not with the Tribunal.

Issue (ii): Whether the matter required fresh consideration in view of the Tribunal's failure to examine the jurisdictional objections and the relevant evidence.

Analysis: The Tribunal did not properly address the limitation objection to the application for registration under Section 25 of the Wakf Act, 1954, did not analyse the evidence, and proceeded on an unsustainable understanding of the parties' admissions. It also failed to consider whether the property could be treated as wakf by dedication or long user. In these circumstances, the factual and legal basis of the decision was incomplete and unsatisfactory.

Conclusion: Fresh consideration by the Tribunal was necessary.

Final Conclusion: The orders of the Tribunal and the High Court were set aside and the matter was sent back to the Tribunal for reconsideration in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory tribunal cannot exercise a power expressly assigned to another authority, and any decision rendered without jurisdiction is void and must be reconsidered within the framework of the statute.

---