Find a Lawyer

MAJOR SHAHPAWL QURESHI versus CHIEF ADMINISTATOR AUQAF, MUZAFFARABAD

Sections 6 and 7 of the Religious Endowments Act, 1963 (XX of 1863); Section 22 deals with the case of dedicated property-appellants who were retaining possession of the land in dispute because its owners received the said property. But some of the land was exempted from taxation in 1904 during the Dogra Regime based on services. The mosque built on it was offered by the appellant's ancestors, but the land was never dedicated to the mosque, receiving regular land revenue after the implementation of the Land Reform Act and the Land Reform Act. The appellants created the landlord's property. The land was acquired and managed for the past 35 years without ever posting a notification in the official Gazette. , After the publication of the 1960 notification, but no such notification has been issued or published as such, on the basis of exemption from the required land revenue under section 7 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Dedicated Property Act, 1960. That the land in the dispute was linked to the mosque, there was no evidence to prove that the land was used for religious purposes. And charitable purposes, but the evidence proved that the appellant was receiving the benefits of the said land, the notification was not issued and published according to the law, since the administrator's decision was long enough to control and manage the appellant's property. Were unable to handle. High Court separates the notice / notification issued by the court and administrator intervals below. registration advocate from Kahror Pacca lawyer