Punjab-Haryana High Court
Punjab Wakf Board vs The State Of Punjab on 23 January, 2012
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.14861 of 1992 (O&M)
Date of decision: 23.01.2012
& Civil Writ Petition Nos.14869 and 14872 of 1992 (O&M)
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
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. (Oral)
1. All these writ petitions are connected that address the correctness of the order passed by the Financial Commissioner accepting the claims made by allottees from the authorities constituted under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. The claim was resisted by the Wakf Board on the ground that the property had been originally dedicated Civil Writ Petition No.14861 of 1992 (O&M) -2- in favour of a mosque by order dated 18th Chet, 1936 and it was classified as muafi land in favour of the said mosque in the hands of persons, who were then in management of the mosque. The Central Government had moved a suo motu revision for cancellation of allotment made to some of the allottees before the Deputy Commissioner, Chief Settlement Commissioner, Kapurthala on the ground that it was not evacuee property that stood vested with the Custodian but, on the other hand, this was the property dedicated to the mosque and later notified under the Wakf Act of 1954 as a wakf property belonging to the mosque. This was accepted by the Chief Settlement Commissioner but on the petition filed at the instance of the allottees, the Financial Commissioner held that the property was only a personal muafi.
2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner points out that in each one of the cases, it is specifically stated that the land in possession of Gulam Rasul is "muafi land in favour of the mosque". A property which is shown to be muafi in favour of mosque cannot be taken to be as partial dedication or that the muafi was personal to the person in possession. On the other hand, the reference is only to the mosque and the person in possession must be taken as holding it in trust for the mosque. The learned counsel refers to a decision of this Court in Tara Singh and another Versus Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab and others in Civil Appeal No.11461 of 1991, decided on 19.10.1993 Civil Writ Petition No.14861 of 1992 (O&M) -3- where it held on the particular facts that existence of khangha (mosque) was itself not disputed and there was no record withdrawing the muafi granted to the mosque. The Court also dealt with some of the decisions relied on by the allottees that notification made under the Wakf Act would not be conclusive. Dealing with the judgment in Punjab Wakf Board Versus Mohan Singh and others -1982 PLJ 343 and Prithipal Singh Versus Punjab Wakf Board and another 1977 PLJ 271 the Court found that a notification issued under Section 5(2) of the Wakf Act would not bind third party and it was for the Wakf Board to prove that the property was either dedicated or used for a religious and charitable purpose. In Prithipal Singh's case (supra), notification under Section 5(2) had itself not been issued. The difference in this case is that the Central Government itself disowned the vesting and contended that the property had vested with the Wakf Board and sought for cancellation of the allotment. In such a situation it was not possible for the Financial Commissioner to make an assertion in favour of the Government that the property had become so vested and was available to make allotment in favour of any of the allottees.
3. Under the above circumstances where the Government itself disowned the vesting and with revenue entries clearly showing that muafi had been granted in favour of the mosque and the property had been held by the mosque and notified as such under the Wakf Act, I would hold that the impugned order treating the Civil Writ Petition No.14861 of 1992 (O&M) -4- property as having vested with the Government as evacuee property and that a muafi was personal muafi and the muslims, who were in possession of the property, had fled to Pakistan and, therefore, the property was evacuee, is bound to be set aside and accordingly set aside.
4. All the writ petitions are allowed.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE 23.01.2012 sanjeev