Punjab-Haryana High Court
Punjab Wakf Board vs The State Of Punjab on 29 February, 2012
Author: K.Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.16837 of 1992 (O&M)
Date of decision: 29.02.2012
Punjab Wakf Board, Ambala Cantt., through its Administrator.
...Petitioner
versus
The State of Punjab, through its Secretary, Rehabilitation
Department, Sector 34, Chandigarh, and others.
....Respondents
II. Civil Writ Petition No.14377 of 1991 (O&M)
Punjab Wakf Board, Ambala Cantt., through its Estate Officer,
Chandigarh.
...Petitioner
versus
Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab, and others.
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
----
Present: Mr. S.K. Pipat, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Manoj
Pundir, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Sahu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
----
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ? No.
2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No.
----
K.Kannan, J.
I Civil Writ Petition No.16837 of 1992 (O&M)
1. The writ petition is at the instance of the Punjab Wakf Board challenging the orders passed by the authorities constituted Civil Writ Petition No.16837 of 1992 (O&M) -2- under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. The claim of the Wakf Board was on the basis that the property had been muafi land granted for the benefit of mosque and held by the persons, who were administering the mosque. On their fleeing away to Pakistan at the time of partition, the property that had been left behind was notified under the Wakf Act of 1954 under Section 5(1) and the same did not vest in the Custodian. The property did not belong to evacuees and consequently, the vesting in favour of the Custodian did not take place. On the other hand, the property belonged only to masjid and the Wakf Board was entitled to stake a claim in respect of the property. The authorities considered that the mere fact that a property is entered in the register did not secure any favourable presumption that the property continued to be the property of the mosque. The authorities relied on previous decision of this Court that had held that where an endowment is made in favour of a faqir attached to a masjid on good conduct, it should only be taken that it was a personal grant and on the grantee going away to Pakistan, it should be treated as evacuee property and become vested with the State.
2. I have seen the revenue entry relating to the property where the entry for sambat 1992 B.K. is that it was muafi in favour of masjid through mohtmin Sekh Mohd. In the remarks column, it is noted that the land is muafi in favour of masjid situate in the village Abadi Dhakra in possession at present of Gulam Mohd. son of Civil Writ Petition No.16837 of 1992 (O&M) -3- Nizamudin Maulana, residing of Village Muksoodpur. If a property is endowed in favour of a masjid, there is no reason to suppose that it is only a partial dedication and that the beneficial interest in such dedication belonged to a person, who was managing the same. On the other hand, a dedication made to a mosque through a human agency is perfectly consistent with the dedication being an absolute grant in favour of masjid. This has been also stated so in a judgment of this Court in Tara Singh and another Versus Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab, and other in Civil Writ Petition No.11461 of 1991, decided on 19.10.1993. The impugned orders are quashed and the writ petition is allowed holding that the property belonged to the masjid at Village Abadi Dhakra and administered by the petitioner-Wakf Board.
3. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. II. Civil Writ Petition No.14377 of 1991(O&M)
4. The subject of writ petition is similar to one referred to in the Civil Writ Petition No.16837 of 1992. In this case, the revenue record would show that the land, in question, was 'Muafi-Ta
-Qiam-khan Gah' till the existence of khangah. The Wakf Board was challenging the allotment that had been made to the lessees contending that a dedication to the khangah must be taken as absolute dedication and, therefore, did not vest with the Custodian to be available for an allotment in favour of any private individual. The reasoning adopted in the writ petition above will apply to this Civil Writ Petition No.16837 of 1992 (O&M) -4- case as well and the impugned order is quashed and the property must be treated as a property belonging to the Wakf Board itself. The right of lessees or their successors to continue in possession or liable to be ejected shall be independently considered and is not made the subject of adjudication in this writ petition. The writ petition is allowed in so far as to hold that the allotment made by the Custodian in favour of the lessees was not valid and the property belonged only to the khangah administered by the petitioner-Wakf Board.
5. The writ petition is allowed to the above extent.
(K.KANNAN) JUDGE 29 .02.2012 sanjeev