IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

119 Date of Decision: 18.04.2026

1. CWP-16836-1992 (O&M)

PUNJAB WAKF BOARD ...Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondents

2. CWP-19875-1998 PUNJAB WAKF BOARD ...Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present:- Mr. Ghulam Nabi Malik, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Vikas Arora, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab Mr. Ashwani Kumar Chopra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vidul Kapoor, Advocate and Ms. Ridhima Khindria, Advocate for respondent No.7 (in CWP-16836-1992)

***

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

1. As common issues are involved in the captioned petitions, with the consent of both sides, the same are hereby disposed of by this common order. For the sake of brevity and convenience, facts are borrowed from CWP-16836-1992.

2. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of orders dated 27.03.1991 (Annexure P-7) and 02.05.1991 (Annexure P-8) whereby revenue authorities have rejected its claim.

3. The writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 19.01.2012. The petitioner filed review application which was allowed and writ petition was allowed vide order dated 19.10.2012. The review application was allowed ex parte. The respondents preferred LPA-1601-2014 which came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court. The Appellate Court vide order dated 05.08.2015 allowed appeal in part and set aside order dated 19.10.2012. The matter was remitted to Single Judge for fresh adjudication of review application. By separate even dated order, the review application has been allowed to the extent of rehearing of the matter.

4. The official respondents allotted land situated in Village Maksudpur, Tehsil and District Kapurthala as evacuee property to private respondents. The petitioner-Punjab Wakf Board preferred revision petition under Section 27 of Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (for short ‘1950 Act’) which came to be dismissed vide impugned order dated 27.03.1991. The Assistant Custodian General held that there is no force in the argument of petitioner because disputed land was ‘Shaksi Muafi’. The assertion of private respondents carry weight. The petitioner preferred petition before Financial Commissioner who vide order dated 02.05.1991 dismissed its petition. Learned Financial Commissioner has held that land in question was ‘Shaksi Muafi’. The exemption from land revenue was granted to Muslim owners for performing certain services to Khanqah. They migrated to Pakistan and their exemption came to an end. Only custodian under 1950 Act was empowered to institute an inquiry and to determine the evacuee character of the property and his jurisdiction was exclusive. The property has rightly been held as evacuee property.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that land as per revenue record was Khanqah. The competent authority in exercise of power conferred by Section 5 read with Section 4 of Wakf Act, 1954 vide notification dated 02.01.1982 declared land in question as Wakf. The said notification was never challenged, thus, property always remained as Wakf Property. The respondent has wrongly declared suit property as evacuee property and allotted to private respondents.

6. Per contra, learned Senior counsel for private respondents submits that land in question was never exclusively donated. The owners remained owner of the property. There was Muafi in favour of ones named in the revenue record. The Muafi was from land revenue. The owners as well as persons who were authorized to use land migrated to Pakistan. In Tara Singh’s case, Muafi was in favour of Masjid whereas in the present case, Muafi was in favour of persons named in the revenue record. The land was allotted prior to notification issued by authorities under Wakf Act, 1954, thus, land for all purposes was evacuee property because authorities under 1950 Act have exclusive authority to decla