In August 2024, the Telangana Waqf Board became the first Waqf body in India to oppose the Waqf Amendment Bill 2024. The Bill, which received the President’s assent and became an Act on April 6, has since come under scrutiny from the Congress-led opposition, Muslim academics, intellectuals, and members of the civil society.
The Waqf Amendment Act 2025 (UMEED Act) was introduced by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) led Union government to bring about key changes to the Waqf Act, 1954. The stated objective of the amendment was to “enhance transparency, accountability, and efficiency in Waqf property management.”
For 12 hours in the first week of April, the Lok Sabha debated the amendment. The INDIA bloc (232 members in the Lok Sabha and 95 members of the Rajya Sabha) collectively opposed it, and yet the Bill passed in both houses of the Parliament.
Speaking to TNM, Telangana Waqf Board chairman Syed Azamatullah Hussaini raised several concerns regarding the Act.
For instance, the amendment removed the limitation that permitted any state Waqf board the opportunity to challenge a property’s ownership beyond two years. The Limitation Act, 1963, imposes a statutory bar on initiating legal proceedings after a prescribed period, effectively exempting Waqf boards from the 12-year limitation period for reclaiming encroached properties.
The amended clause read, “On and from the commencement of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, the Limitation Act, 1963 shall apply to any proceedings in relation to any claim or interest pertaining to immovable property comprised in a Waqf.”
Hussaini pointed out that the same rule does not apply to Hindu endowments and that the Waqf alone has been singled out. “Currently we are dealing with over 5000 encroachment cases in different courts across Telangana, connected to disputes with either private parties or the revenue department. The large number of cases is also owed to a lack of sufficient staff members. If the Limitation Act is applied, then we end up losing several properties that belong to the Waqf board,” he said.
The issue of formal documentation
The new amendment abolished the concept of ‘Waqf by user’ — a doctrine rooted in Islamic law that recognised properties as religious or charitable endowments based on their uninterrupted communal use, even in the absence of formal documentation. Historically, numerous mosques, graveyards, shrines, and other religious sites were established through oral declarations or customs.
The Amendment states that ‘Waqf by user’ properties registered on or before the law’s enactment will retain their status, unless they are disputed or identified as government land. In effect, the government has retained the doctrine for historical cases, while prohibiting its application to future land claims. However, many including AIMIM chief and Hyderabad MP Asaduddin Owaisi argued in the Lok Sabha that this clause could affect Waqf properties still in dispute and result in loss of their Waqf status.
Making a similar case, Hussaini said that while the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) recognised monuments like Charminar as historically important sites, nothing stops anyone from claiming the mosque atop Charminar as public property. “There is no clear title document for the mosque. There is no land deed to show that it is in effect Waqf property because it is an age old property,” he said.
Disputes raised by the Hindu right
Hussaini raised concerns over lists published by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and other Hindu right organisations, claiming that over 14,000 mosques across India were in fact once temples. “With the removal of Waqf by user, the amendment makes it easy to claim disputed Waqf properties in the future and reduce the land holding power of the Waqf.”
Hussaini explained that earlier, Waqf land was administered by the revenue department. “We now find ourselves in a stand off with the revenue department because old deeds used terms like ‘sarkar’. Waqf came under the revenue department until it eventually came under the minority welfare department’s purview. So now there is doubt in many cases as to whether a property belongs to the revenue department or the Waqf board.”
Who is a practising Muslim?
As per the new amendment, Section 3 of the Waqf Act qualifies “any person showing or demonstrating that he is practising Islam for at least five years,” for a Waqf dedication, in place of, “any person, of any movable or immovable property”. That is, the clause only allows someone to create a Waqf if they have practised Islam for five years, instead of considering them Muslim from the moment they convert.
National Law University, Patna, Vice Chancellor Faizan Mustafa explained in several interviews that the clause is discriminatory towards people who newly convert to Islam.
Hussaini had another issue to raise. “Putting aside conversion, we should focus on the use of the word ‘practising’. Who determines who is a practising Muslim? Will it be the Collector who decides? If someone doesn’t read Namaz five times a day or consumes alcohol, would they not qualify for a Waqf dedication? Does this clause not end up dissuading people from making a Waqf donation?” he asked, adding that Telangana, among other states, has a long-standing practice of Hindus participating in Muharram and dedicating Waqf.
“If the Union government really wanted to help Waqf Boards, they should have consulted with the stakeholders. They should have asked us what we needed and we would have asked for increased funding, and judicial powers to protect our lands from encroachment. But since that hasn’t happened, we have pinned our hopes on the Supreme Court,” he said.