The Waqf Amendment Act has sparked significant debate across India in recent years, particularly around a term that has raised eyebrows — “Waqf by user.” Though little known outside legal and administrative circles until recently, this provision has become central to the discourse around land rights, religious endowments, and state powers in managing religious properties.
But what exactly is “Waqf by user,” and why is it at the heart of this heated conversation?
Understanding Waqf
To begin with, a Waqf is a permanent dedication of movable or immovable property for religious, pious, or charitable purposes as recognized under Islamic law. Once declared as waqf, the property is meant to serve religious or community welfare goals and is typically managed by a mutawalli (caretaker), under the supervision of Waqf Boards established by the government.
India is home to one of the largest collections of waqf properties in the world, and the management of these lands falls under the jurisdiction of Central and State Waqf Boards, governed by the Waqf Act of 1995.
What is ‘Waqf by User’?
The term “waqf by user” refers to a situation where a property is not formally registered or declared as waqf through documentation but is claimed as waqf based on long-standing usage — for instance, if a piece of land has been used for offering prayers, religious gatherings, or charitable purposes for a sustained period of time.
In simple terms, it’s an informal recognition of a property’s religious use, which can potentially be converted into a formal waqf listing — even if there is no original deed of dedication.
The controversy arises when such properties are identified and recorded as waqf land without clear legal documentation, often based solely on historical usage patterns, oral accounts, or local records.
The 2013 Amendment and Rising Concerns
The Waqf Amendment Act of 2013, passed during the UPA-II government, added more teeth to the powers of Waqf Boards. Among other provisions, it allowed these boards to suo motu (on their own) record any property as waqf property, even without a registered waqf deed, if it is found to have been used “continuously” for religious purposes.
Critics argue that this opens the door to misuse. Landowners, especially in rural areas, have raised concerns that their properties could be arbitrarily classified as waqf land, based on vague or disputed usage claims. In some instances, this has led to legal battles and social tensions over land rights and property ownership.
Several state governments and legal experts have called for greater clarity and judicial oversight in such decisions, emphasizing that historical usage alone should not override ownership documents or land titles.
Legal and Political Reactions
Opposition to the “waqf by user” concept has grown in several states. In Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka, for example, demands have been raised to scrap or amend this clause, citing fears that it could infringe upon property rights and embolden land encroachment under religious pretexts.
BJP leaders in particular have questioned why Waqf Boards are given quasi-judicial authority without adequate checks, and why similar frameworks do not exist for other religious communities. They argue that such special provisions create legal asymmetry and fuel religious polarization.
Meanwhile, Muslim community leaders and some scholars defend the provision, saying it is meant to preserve centuries-old religious practices and communal assets that were never formally recorded due to historical marginalization or lack of legal access.
The Call for Reform
As the debate intensifies, there is a growing chorus for a review of the Waqf Act as a whole — not just the “waqf by user” clause. Legal experts have suggested establishing independent tribunals, ensuring greater transparency in Waqf Board functioning, and introducing uniform guidelines for identifying waqf properties.
Balancing the preservation of religious heritage with the protection of individual property rights is a delicate task. The “waqf by user” clause sits at the heart of this challenge — a legal grey area that demands clearer definitions, procedural fairness, and judicial oversight.
In a country as diverse and complex as India, resolving such issues through dialogue, legal reform, and inclusive policymaking is essential to avoid fueling distrust and division — and to ensure that justice is served, both for communities and individuals.