Headnote:Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961-Sections 2(g) and 13-The Wakf Act, 1954-Sections 5(2) and 6(1)-Property in question notified as moslem grave-yard u/s 5(2) of Wakf Act-Gram Panchayat s representation before Assistant Collector that property belonged to it after lapse of one year from notification-Assistant Collector held in favour of Gram Panchayat-Collector also upheld his findings-Suit thereafter by Wakf Board-Defence of Gram Panchayat on merit as well as on ground suit barred u/s 13 of Punjab Village Common Lands Act-Dismissal of suit on merit as well as on ground of bar u/s 13-Wakf Board s plea that since no suit was filed within one year from Notification u/s 5(2) of Wakf Act Collector could not render decision contrary to Notification-Held: dispute, in question being between Wakf Board and third party and not between Wakf Board and person interested in Wakf, Section 6(2) of Wakf Act did not bar jurisdiction of Collector to resolve dispute-Suit barred u/s 13 of Panchayat Act as decision of Collector became final. Board of Muslim Wakf, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan & Ors., 1979(2) SCC 468 : Followed.
       Held : In the present case before us, therefore, the dispute not being one between the wakf and Mutawalli or the persons claiming under him, but with a stranger (the Panchayat). The first proviso to clause (1) of Section 6 referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, whether the property is a modern Wakf or not. (Paras 18 & 19)
       As regards Explanation to Section 6(1), obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under Section 4 preceding the Notification under Section 5(2). Further the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the civil suit filed by the Wakf Board. (Paras 20 and 21)

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The first proviso to Section 6(1) permits suits within one year from the publication of the list of Wakfs; the Court held it does not bar third-party disputes from being decided by Assistant Collector/Collector in a dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat. (!) (!) (!) - The Court distinguished Sayyed Ali & Ors. v. A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad & Ors. as involving Wakf Board versus Mutawalli/lessees, not a third-party dispute; thus Sayyed Ali is not applicable to the present case. Board of Muslim Wakf, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan & Ors. is more directly in point. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The suit by the Wakf Board was held barred under Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 because the dispute involved a third party and the Assistant Collector/Collector’s decisions were final. (!) (!) (!)

What is the effect of the first proviso to Section 6(1) of the Wakf Act on suits filed by Wakf Board against third parties challenged by Gram Panchayat?

What is the applicability of Sayyedali v. A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad to disputes involving Wakf Board versus a third party (Panchayat) as opposed to disputes between Wakf Board and Mutawalli or interested parties?

What is the status of the suit filed by the Wakf Board under Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 in light of the Collector’s and Assistant Collector’s decisions?

JUDGMENT

M. Jagannadha Rao, J.-This appeal is preferred by the Punjab Wakf Board against the Judgment of the Punjab High Court in R.S.A. No. 1712/1995 dated 6.12.1996. By that judgment, the Punjab High Court confirmed the Judgment of the Additional District Judge, dated 5.10.94, which had affirmed the Judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Samra s dated 31.3.1992. All the Courts have dismissed the present suit filed by the Punjab Wakf Board on merits as well as on the ground that, by virtue of Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the present suit was barred from the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. It is against this Judgment that the Punjab Wakf Board has come up in appeal.

2. The facts of this case in brief are as follows:

On 19.9.70 the Punjab Wakf Board issued a Notification under sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Wakf Act, 1954, treating the property in question as a moslem grave-yard.

3. It appears that on 21.5.1972, the Director of Land Records, Punjab, wrote to the Revenue Officer concerned for mutation of the land in the name of the Punjab Wakf Board. Accordingly, the Patwari of the area mutated the property in the name of the Punjab Wakf Board. Thereafter, the matter was taken up by the Gram Panchayat (Gram Sabha) of Hariom Khurd, Tahsil Samrala, District Ludhiyana) before the Assistant Collector, Grade I, Samrala, contending that the property was community property which stood vested in the Gram Panchayat and could not have been mutated in the name of the Punjab Wakf Board. On that, notice was issued to the Punjab Wakf Board and evidence was also led by the parties. Learned counsel for the Gram Panchayat argued before the said Assistant Collector that the Gram Panchayat was the owner of the property which was Gair Mumkin Kabaristan according to revenue records. Moreover, it was being used for common purposes of all communities by the Gram Panchayat and was also a site for an annual fair. It was contended that the Punjab Wakf Board could have no claim over the property and that the mutation could not have been made in favour of the Wakf Board upon a letter from the Director of Land Records. On the other hand, it was contended by the Punjab Wakf Board that the property was under the ownership of the Punjab Wakf Board and was being used as a graveyard for Mohammadans exclusively and was not being used as a graveyard generally for all the members of the community.

4. On the above contentions, the Assistant Collector held as follows:

"Moreover, the Gram Panchayat has been recorded as the owner in the revenue records and the property in question is also being used for common purposes under the Gram Panchayat. At the same time, the Punjab Wakf Board has also failed to substantiate its claim over the disputed property and has also not been able to rebut the claim of the Gram Panchayat. In these circumstances, the mutation is rejected".

5. This order was passed on 31.3.1986 by the Assistant Collector in favour of the Village Panchayat. The appeal against this order filed by the Punjab Wakf Board was dismissed by the Collector on 20.7.1987. Thereafter, the Punjab Wakf Board filed the present suit before the Subordinate Judge s Court on 5.10.1990 for a declaration that the plaintiff was the owner in possession of the property as per the Jamabandi for the year 1987-88 with all rights appurtenant thereto. The Punjab Wakf Board relied upon the statutory Notification dated 19.9.1970 as being conclusive that the property was merely a moslem graveyard. The Wakf Board contended that the order of the Assistant Collector dated 31.3.1986 and that of the Collector under appeal were illegal and without jurisdiction in as much as the notification dated 19.9.1970 was not questioned by the Gram Panchayat within one year thereof, as provided in the first proviso to Section 6(1) of Wakf Act.

6. The Gram Panchayat filed a written statement contending that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1999 Supreme(SC) 1406

What is the effect of the first proviso to Section 6(1) of the Wakf Act on suits filed by Wakf Board against third parties challenged by Gram Panchayat?

What is the applicability of Sayyedali v. A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad to disputes involving Wakf Board versus a third party (Panchayat) as opposed to disputes between Wakf Board and Mutawalli or interested parties?

What is the status of the suit filed by the Wakf Board under Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 in light of the Collector’s and Assistant Collector’s decisions?

Cases Referred (3)