A notification declaring a property as Wakf is invalid if the mandatory procedural requirements, specifically the preliminary survey and inquiry prescribed under Sections 4 and 5 of the Wakf Act, are not strictly followed and documented.

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 and the judgment dated 05.10.1995 passed by the learned 1st Appellate 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 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 have no right, title or interest therein. It was pleaded that 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 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 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 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 referred to as the Act of 1955) had been served upon the defendant, granting 60 days to admit the 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 rightly sanctioned in favour of the Wakf Board, as the property originally belonged to a Muslim, who had migrated to Pakistan. The authority of the alleged Managing Committee of the Gurdwara to lease out the property was specifically denied, and it was asserted 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 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