The implementation of the Waqf Amendment Act has moved to the UMEED portal — the Unified Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development system. This platform is being used for the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process of Waqf property registration. Under this three-tier system, property details are entered by the maker (mutawalli or caretaker), reviewed by a checker (Waqf Board official), and finally verified by an approver (a designated government authority).
The new process has raised concerns among Muslim communities because a significant number of Waqf properties may not meet the documentation requirements demanded by the UMEED portal. Historically, many endowments were created without formal written deeds, relying instead on oral declarations (hiba), customary use, or post-Partition transfers. Such practices, while long accepted socially and administratively, may not qualify under the new rules.
Official figures show that while India has an estimated 8.72 lakh Waqf properties covering about 38 lakh acres of land, only around 4,000 properties have so far been registered on the UMEED portal. The gap is considerable, and the requirement for detailed records — such as deeds, survey reports, boundary details, audit reports, and financial registers — has created uncertainty over how many properties will ultimately be validated.
The Waqf Amendment Act places the burden of proof on the community and Waqf Boards, not on government record offices. However, much of the existing archival record, including those from the colonial era, is incomplete, missing boundaries, or written in Persian and Arabic, which makes retrieval and translation difficult. Board officials across states including Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Rajasthan, and Maharashtra have reported that fulfilling the portal’s technical requirements is proving extremely challenging.
The implications are serious. Large categories of Waqf, such as Waqf by user (mosques, dargahs, graveyards, Eidgahs, and imambaras), may be left out if they lack documentary evidence, despite being actively used by the community. Similarly, historical mosques and tombs under the Archaeological Survey of India have already been excluded from Waqf ownership under the amendment.
Waqf in India has evolved through several milestones. During Partition, many Muslims who migrated to Pakistan dedicated their property for the welfare of those left behind, often without deeds. Later, during the abolition of Zamindari in 1955 and under the Urban Land Ceiling Act of 1968, properties were endowed informally to safeguard them from state acquisition. These legacies, though widely acknowledged, now face disqualification under the current registration regime.
Critics argue that the Act risks significantly reducing the official number of Waqf properties. A senior Waqf Board member in Uttar Pradesh noted that revenue officials themselves often cannot locate records, yet the onus is placed on Waqf boards. Others highlight technical difficulties in defining property boundaries where land shares are divided among multiple owners.
Some Muslim leaders have openly challenged the process. In Tamil Nadu, MLA M.H. Jawahirullah has termed the UMEED portal “illegal” and amounting to contempt of court. The Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind has called for rejecting the Act, and while it has postponed its planned ‘Bharat Bandh,’ it is preparing for a large rally in Delhi’s Ramlila Maidan on November 16, 2025.
What emerges from this debate is the question of whether the new system, designed ostensibly to ensure transparency and accountability, may inadvertently undermine centuries of endowments made for religious, social, and economic welfare. If many properties fail to meet the verification standards, the future of Waqf as an institution will be significantly altered.
At stake is not only the question of ownership but also the welfare role of Waqf properties, which fund mosques, educational institutions, hospitals, and community welfare programs across the country. The outcome of the SIR process will therefore have far-reaching consequences for both community life and the broader landscape of land ownership in India.
---
*Journalist based in Chennai
Comments