The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Ziarats were wakafs as defined under the Wakafs Act, and the office of Sajjad Nisheen was not heritable under Muslim Law.

1. The only question involved in the case is whether the Ziarat Shah Farid-ud-din Sahib and Ziarat Shah Israr-ud-din Sahib situate in Kishtwar are wakafs as defined in the Wakafs Act, 1978. In case these are wakafs, their management will be under the Wakafs Act and the question whether office of Sajjad Nisheen is heritable or not raised by the petitioner will be of academic interest only because management of such wakafs has to be under the Wakafs Act. In order to answer this, it is necessary to make a brief reference to the history of Kishtwar which once happened to be an independent State before being annexed by Maharaja Gulab Singh in 1821 A.D. It is a matter of history that many of the rulers of this erstwhile small hill principality had converted to Islam. Raja Kirat Singh is said to have embraced Islam some where in 1681 A.D. It is said that Shah Farid-ud-din came to Kishtwar some where in 1664 and died in 1725 A.D. His son Shah Assarar-ud-din it is said had died in 1685 A.D. Two Mausoleums were built at two different places where they were burried. Both these mausoleums are known as the Ziarats of Shah Farid-ud-din and Shah Assarar-ud-din and are visited by thousands of devotees from all over the State especially on their death anniversaries falling on (17th Har and 25th Kartak) every year. While Urs of Shah Farid-ud-din Sahib is a public holiday for Tehsil Kishtwar, Urs of Shah Assarar-ud-din Sahib is a public holiday for the district Doda. This speaks of the reverence the two saints are held by the people of the district.

2. It is admitted case of the parties that before the State intervened in exercise of the powers under the Wakafs Act by appointing Shri A.W. Kripak as administrator, both the shrines were being managed by two Sajjad Nisheen namely, Syed Lutfullah Shah and Peer Nizam ud-din, the later having died during the pendency of these proceedings. Both of them challenged the appointment of the respondent-1 as administrator, Wakafs Committee Kishtwar mainly on the ground that they along with their other members of the family are Sajjad Nisheen of the shrines and this right under Mohammadan Law is hereditary However, while the petition was pending the govt. issued notification under S. 6 of the Wakafs Act, 1978 vide SRO 619 whereby list of wakafs of Kishtwar was published. This list included both the Ziarats. The petitioners challenged the notification by filing appeal under section 5(2) of the Wakafs Act which was rejected by the appellate authority on 30-04-1982. The petitioners amended the petition to challenge the report of the Special Officer dated 05-08-1979, SRO 619 of 1979 dated 15-11-1979 and the decision of the appellate authority dated 30-04-1982 dismissing the appeal filed under section 5(2) of Wakafs Act on the following grounds, (1) that the Special Officer appointed under the Muslim Wakafs Act, 1959 had in his report dated 09-08-1969 found that Ziarat Shah Isarar-ud-din and Ziarat Farid-ud-din are out of the purview of Wakafs Act and (2) this report has become final u/s 61 of the Wakafs Act as no appeal was filed against it, (3) the report of the Special Officer dated 05-08-1979 is based on no evidence as he neither invited objections nor heard the petitioners, (4) SRO 619 is invalid as it is based on the report of Special Officer who did not follow the procedure prescribed under the Wakafs Act, (5) the declaration of shrines as wakafs is a mala-fide act of the respondents against their political rivals who are managing the shrines (6) the shrines are not wakafs because the land was granted by Hindu Raja of the time (7) the appeal has been dismissed only because respondent-3 is biased as the petitioners are his political rivals.

3. The stand of the respondent-Chairman, Wakaf Committee, Kishtwar is that petitioner-1 was only a Manager of the Ziarat and his family members have no better right than he had in the wakaf. It is also stated that the report of the Special Officer is in accordance with th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document