Punjab-Haryana High Court
Punjab Wakf Board vs Gurudwara Sahib Add Mazam Taraf, ... on 23 April, 2026
RSA-329-1996
1996 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
202 RSA No.329-1996 (O&M)
Reserved on: 09.04.2026
Pronounced on:23.04.2026
04.2026
Uploaded on:24.04.2026
Punjab Wakf Board, Ambala Cantt ... Appellant
Versus
Gurdwara Sahib Add MazamTaraf, Sudhar Chogawan, District Amritsar.
...Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL
Present: Mr. Lalit Singla, Advocate and
Mr. Varsha Sharma, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. Prabjot Singh Chahal, Advocate and
Mr. G.S. Nagra, Advocate,
for the respondent.
***
AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J.
1. The defendant is the appellant before this Court, challenging the judgment and decree dated 19.05.1992 passed by the learned trial Court decreeing the suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff-respondent plaintiff respondent and the judgment dated 05.10.1995 passed by the learned le 1stAppellate Court vide which the appeal preferred by the defendant against the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, has also been dismissed.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their eir status before the trial court.
3. Succinctly, the facts of the case were that the plaintiff claimed itself to be the owner in possession of the suit land, whereas the defendant was alleged to PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.04.24 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-329-1996 1996 (O&M) -2- have no right, title or interest therein. It was pleaded th that at the suit land had been wrongly mutated in the name of the defendant and that any notification, if issued by the Government declaring the property as Wakf property in favour of the defendant, was illegal, void and without authority of law. The plaintiff asserted that the suit property had neither been dedicated by any person professing Islam nor had it ever been used for purposes recognized under Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable, and thus, it could not have been declared as Wakf property. It was w further averred that such notification adversely affected the rights of the plaintiff, who was not interested in the Wakf and was not bound by the same. It was also pleaded that no opportunity of hearing had been afforded to the plaintiff prior to issuance nce of the notification, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The plaintiff was stated to have remained in possession of the suit property as owner through its Manager, and previously, the property had been managed by Sh. Amar Singh and leased sed out by the Managing Committee to different persons. It was further pleaded that a notice under Section 56 of the Punjab Wakf Board Act,1995 (hereinafter after referred to as the Act of 1955) had been served upon the defendant, granting 60 days to admit the claim, claim, but to no avail. Hence the plaintiff instituted the present suit.
4. Upon issuance of summons, the defendant appeared through its counsel and contested the suit by filing a written statement, wherein it was averred that the plaintiff had no concern whatsoever with the suit land. It was pleaded that the suit property had been validly declared as Wakf property vide a Gazette notification issued by the Central Government, which was legal and binding upon the plaintiff, and that the mutation had been rig rightly sanctioned in favourr of the Wakf Board, as the property originally belonged to a Muslim Muslim, who had migrated to PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.04.24 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-329-1996 1996 (O&M) -3- Pakistan. The authority of the alleged Managing Committee of the Gurdwara to lease out the property was specifically denied, and it was assert asserted ed that the suit land was in possession of the Board through its tenants. The suit was further contested on the grounds that the plaintiff had no locus standi to file the same. Furthermore, it was contended that the plaint had not been signed and verified by a duly authorised person, as Gurpartap Gu Singh was neither the Manager of the alleged Gurdwara nor did any such committee exist and the suit was bad for want of proper notice under Section 56 of the Act of 1955 and was not maintainable in its present form.. Additionally, it had not been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction, as ad valorem court fee was liable to be paid since the land was not assessed to land revenue and the suit was barred by limitation. Lastly, it was submitted that at the plaintiff was not in possession of any part of the suit property. On these premises, the suit was stated to be false, frivolous and liable to be dismissed.
5. On the basis of pleadings, learned trial Court had framed as many as nine issues including including relief. On appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence produced before it, the learned trial Court allowed the suit of the plaintiff and the appeal preferred by defendant was dismissed by the learned 1stAppellate Court. Hence, the regular second sec appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant appellant-defendant defendant contended that the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below are contrary to law and facts on record and are liable to be set aside. It was argued that the plaintiff-
plaintiff respondent was bound by the notification dated 09.01.1971 09.01.1971(Ex.D1) (Ex.D1) issued by the Central Government declaring the disputed property as Wakf property property.. The learned Courts below have wrongly discarded the said notification, as being issued PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.04.24 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-329-1996 1996 (O&M) -4- in violation of the principle of natural natural justice. In fact, the suit property was shown as a khangah khudabakash wali panahi kadeem adeem and thus, there was no necessity to make an enquiry before declaring the said property as wakf wakf. Once a wakf is always a wakf. The notification issued whereby the suit property was declared as a wakf property draws a presumption with regard to genuineness of the notification, as provided under Section 81 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Ajit Pal Singh Vs. Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab and others 2023:PHHC:081299-DB.
2023:PHHC:081299 Further, it was submitted that the alleged record regarding leasing easing out of the property, as well as the receipts relied upon by the respondent-plaintiff plaintiff,, were forged, fabricated and inadmissible in evidence, having no evidentiary value in the eyes of law. Furthermore, it was contended that the alleged oral gift by Shri Shri Makhan Singh in favour of the respondent respondent-plaintiff was neither valid nor legally sustainable, as the said Makhan Singh had no right to effect such transfer, and consequently, no right, title or interest accrued to the plaintiff on that basis. Additionally, Additionally, it was urged that the learned Courts below had failed to properly appreciate and interpret the revenue record, which clearly established the disputed property to be Wakf property, and that there was cogent evidence on record to show that the appellant appellant-defendant defendant had leased out the property to Kashmir Singh, thereby proving possession of the Wakf Board through its tenants. The he plaintiff-respondent plaintiff respondent was neither owner nor in possession of the suit property and that the same had rightly been declared as Wakf property through a valid notification. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed by setting aside the impugned judgments and decrees and dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-
plaintiff respondent.
PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.04.24 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-329-1996 1996 (O&M) -5-
7. Per contra, contra, learned counsel for the respondent respondent-plaintiff contended ended that the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below were based on proper appreciation of evidence and correct application of law, and thus, did not call for any interference in the present appeal. It was submitted that both the Courts below elow had returned well-reasoned well reasoned and concurrent findings of fact, holding the respondent-plaintiff plaintiff to be the owner in possession of the suit property. The appellant-defendant defendant had miserably failed to prove dedication of the suit property for any pious, religious religious or charitable purpose by anyone professing Islam, rather it was duly proved by the respondent-plaintiff respondent plaintiff that the property was gifted by one Makhan Singh to the respondent-plaintiff respondent plaintiff vide oral gift dated 06.07.1949 and thereafter, in all subsequent revenue revenue entries i.e. jamabandies i.e. Ex.P25 to P P28, 28, the respondent-plaintiff/Gurdwara plaintiff/Gurdwara has been shown to be owner in possession. Lastly, he relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Salem Muslim Burial Ground Protection Committee Vs. St State ate of Tamil Nadu and others (2023) 16 SCC 264 to argue that before declaring a property as wakf, a survey of wakf has to be conducted and the Survey Commission, after making an enquiry as may be deemed necessary, shall submit its report to the State Government nment about certain factors enumerated therein whereupon the State Government by a notification in the official Gazette direct for a second survey to be conducted. Once the above procedure of survey is completed and the disputes arising thereto have been settled, on receipt of the report, the State Government shall forward it to the Wakf Board. The Wakf Board on examining the same shall publish the list of wakfs in existence with particulars in the official gazette as contemplated under Section 5 of the Act.
Act. However, in the instant case, no such PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.04.24 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-329-1996 1996 (O&M) -6- procedure was carried out before issuance of the notification, Ex.D1 and thus, the same was rightly rejected by both the learned Courts below.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the paper book as well as the case laws cited with their able assistance.
9. The statutory scheme under the th Act of 1955 mandates strict adherence to the procedure prescribed under Section 4 and 5 priorr to declaring any property as wakf. The statutory scheme of Section 4 of the Act of 1955, contemplates a prior survey by the Survey Commissioner, a due inquiry into the nature of the property, submission of a report to the State Government and then only thereafter upon consideration of such report and settlement settlement of disputes, notification is issued publishing the list of wakfs therein. In the present case the appellant appellant-defendant defendant has failed to place any material on record to demonstrate that such mandatory procedure ure was ever followed prior to the issuance of the notification in question.
question In the absence of compliance with the foundational requirements under Section 4, the subsequent notification under Section 5 cannot be sustained as valid or conclusive proof of the suit land being wakf. In the case in hand, ther theree is not an iota of evidence brought on record that such procedure was ever followed in declaring the suit property as wakf property vide notification dated 09.01.1971 (Ex.D1). Rather, DW-1 1 Mohd. Sadiq, Estate Officer, Punjab Wakf Board, Amritsar stated iin n his cross-examination examination that for the first time, the property was leased out in the year 1986-87 87 to Kashmir Singh, the alleged tenant of appellant appellant-defendant. Prior to 1986-87 87 and subsequent thereto, it was the respondent respondent-plaintiff/Gurdwara, plaintiff/Gurdwara, which was shown n to be owner in possession. Consequently, the nnotification otification dated 09.01.1971 (Ex.D1) cannot be treated as a valid or conclusive proof of the suit land PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.04.24 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-329-1996 1996 (O&M) -7- being wakf. In Salem Muslim Burial ial Ground Protection Committee's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
under:-
"31.
31. The Wakf Act, 1954,, which actually is relevant for our purpose, provides that, first, a preliminary survey of wakfs has to be conducted and the Survey Commission shall, after such inquiry as may be deemed necessary, submit its report to the State Government about certain factors enumerated therein whereupon the State Government by a notification in the official Gazette direct for a second survey to be conducted. Once the above procedure procedure of survey is completed and the disputes arising thereto have been settled, on receipt of the report, the State Government shall forward it to the Wakf Board. The Wakf Board on examining the same shall publish the list of wakfs in existence with full particulars particulars in the official Gazette as contemplated under Section 5 of the Act. Similar provisions exist under the Waqf Act, 1995.
32. A plain reading of the the provisions of the above two Acts would reveal that the notification under Section 5 of both the Acts declaring the list of the wakfs shall only be published after completion of the process as laid down under Section 4 of the above Acts, which provides for two surveys, settlement of disputes arising thereto and the submission of the report to the State Government and to the Board. Therefore, conducting of of the surveys before declaring a property a wakf property is a sine qua non. In the case at hand, there is no material or evidence on record that before issuing notification under Section 5 of the Wakf Act, 1954 1954,, any procedure or the survey was conducted as contemplated by Section 4 of the Act. In the absence of such a material, the mere issuance of the no notification under Section 5 of the Act would not constitute a valid wakf in respect of the suit land. Therefore, the notification dated 29.04.1959 is not a conclusive proof of the fact that the suit land is a wakf property. It is for this reason probably that the appellant Committee had never pressed the said notification into service up till 1999."
PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.04.24 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-329-1996 1996 (O&M) -8-
10. Under Muslim law, a wakf may be created in several ways, the primary mode being the permanent dedication of any movable or immovable property by a person professing Islam for purposes recognized as pious, religious, or charitable. Such dedication must be irrevocable and for the benefit of the public or a section thereof. In the absence of an express dedicati dedication, on, a wakf may also be inferred or presumed from long and uninterrupted user of the property for religious or charitable purposes, provided such user is consistent with the concept of wakf. The creation of a wakf,, though generally effected through an expr express ess and unequivocal act of permanent dedication, need not in all cases be established by direct evidence of such dedication. In appropriate circumstances, the existence of a wakf may be legitimately inferred from the surrounding facts and conduct of the parties.
rties. In particular, where a property has, over a long and uninterrupted period, been consistently treated, managed, and utilized as wakf property, and has been devoted to purposes recognized as religious or public charitable under Muslim law, a presumption on of valid dedication may arise. Such long long-standing standing user, coupled with the manner in which the property has been dealt with, can thus furnish sufficient basis to infer the creation of a wakf, even in the absence of any formal or express declaration to that tha effect.
11. Therefore, the t reliance placed upon Ajit Pal Singh's case (supra) by the learned counsel ounsel for the appellant-defendant defendant is wholly misplaced and does not advance the case of the appellant-defendant.
defendant. In the said case, the disputed land was described as Gair Mumkim Kabaristan/Maqbooza Maqbooza Ahle Islam holding due character of the land as a kabaristan and the user of the said land as such was established on the basis of consistent and uncontroverted revenue entries. Thus, the principle once a wakf is always a wakf was duly recognized and it was held that PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.04.24 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-329-1996 1996 (O&M) -9- character of the wakf property being a kabristan could not be diluted even by prolonged non--user. However inn the present case, the appellant-defendant defendant has miserably failed iled to prove the character of the suit property as khangah, which was dedicated by a person professing Islam for any purpose recognised by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable purpose and in the absence of such dedication, it came into existence by long use.
use There here is only one revenue entry in the year 1986- 1986 87 in which one Kashmir Singh was shown to be tenant under the Wakf Board, however, prior and subsequent thereto, in all revenue entries, the suit property has been shown in the ownership and possession of th the respondent-plaintiff. There is nothing on record to establish that the suit property acquired the character of wakf property through long and immemorial user. Furthermore, there is not an iota of evidence that the procedure as contemplated under Section 4 and 5 of the Act of 1955 was ever followed while issuing notification dated 09.01.1971 (Ex.D1) (Ex.D declaring the suit property as wakf property, thus, both the learned Courts below have rightly decreed the suit of the respondent-plaintiff.
respondent plaintiff.
12. In view of the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pankajakshi (Dead) through Legal Representatives and others Vs. Chandrika and others (2016) 6 SCC 157, Randhir Kaur Vs. Prithvi Pal Singh and others (2019) 17 SCC 71 and Gurbachan Singh (dead) through L LRs Rs Vs. Gurcharan 875, questions of Singh (dead) through LRs and others (2023) SCC Online SC 875 law are not required to be framed in second appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court whose jurisdiction is circumscribed by provisions of Section 41 of the Punjab unjab Courts Act, 1918.
13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the arguments raised by learned counsel for the appellant-
appellant PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.04.24 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-329-1996 1996 (O&M) -10- plaintiff. Consequently, the concurrent finding rendered by both the Courts below belo is upheld and the instant regular second appeal is dismissed.
14. Miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(AMARINDER AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) GREWAL JUDGE April 23, 2026 Pankaj* Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.04.24 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh