Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
G.C.Mital, J.
Punjab Wakf Board
Versus
Mohan Singh
Regular Second Appeal No. 1348 of 1979,
Decided On : JULY 13, 1982
Wakf Property - Ownership - Summary: The court considered whether the property in dispute was proved to be Wakf property owned by the Punjab Wakf Board. The court found that the property was not proved to be Wakf property either by dedication or by user. The reliance on Survey Register and Notification issued under the Wakf Act, 1954 was deemed insufficient to prove dedication or religious use. The property had vested in the Custodian and was allotted for rehabilitation, and the act of the Rehabilitation Department could not be challenged before a civil court.
Fact of the Case:
The property in dispute was claimed to be Wakf property owned by the Punjab Wakf Board. The lower courts found that it was not proved to be Wakf property by dedication or by user.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the appeal, as it was not proved that the property in dispute was Wakf property. The property had vested in the Custodian and was allotted for rehabilitation, and the act of the Rehabilitation Department could not be challenged before a civil court.
Issues: The main issue was whether the property in dispute was proved to be Wakf property owned by the Punjab Wakf Board.
Ratio Decidendi: The reliance on Survey Register and Notification issued under the Wakf Act, 1954 was insufficient to prove dedication or religious use. The property had vested in the Custodian and was allotted for rehabilitation, and the act of the Rehabilitation Department could not be challenged before a civil court.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, without any order as to costs.
G.C.Mital, J.
1. The only point involved in this second appeal is whether the property in dispute is proved to be Wakf property owned by the Punjab Wakf Board. Both the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings that it has not been proved that the property in dispute was Wakf either by dedication or by user. The counsel for the Punjab Wakf Board, however, relies on Exhibits P-1 and P-2 which are copies of Survey Register and Notification issued under Section 5 of the Wakf Act, 1954 , wherein the property in dispute is recorded as Imambara and the nature of its object is recorded as religious. It has been ruled in Cheedella Kolaiah v. Wakf Board Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and others, A.I.R. 1978 Andhra Pradesh 34, and Abdul Kareem and others v. The Special Officer for Wakfs, Madras and others, A.I.R. 1972 Madras 8, that any such notification would not bind a third person and qua third person it will have to be proved by the Punjab Wakf Board that the property in dispute was either dedicated or was used for religious and charitable purposes. In this case, no evidence has been brought on the record if the property was ever dedicated or used for such purposes.
2. Moreover, what I find from the record is that the property vested in the Custodian and thereafter it was allotted to respondent No. 1 as a custodian property for his rehabilitation. The act of the Rehabilitation Department cannot be challenged before a civil Court in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Custodian Evacuee Property Punjab and others v. Jafran Begum, 1968 P.L.R. 1.
3. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is dismissed, but without any order as to costs.
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
