Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 344 of 1973, decided on 12th March 1974.

(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court dated the l8th of May 1973, in F. A. O. No. 1 of 1967.

‑‑Ss‑‑‑2(d.), Explanation & 7 Waqf Declaration Sizeable Portion of the land alleged to be personal property of petitioner in use from time immemorial for a purpose recognized by Islam as a religious, pious or charitable‑‑petition containing admission of shrine comprising, mausoleum and other building surrounding it having come into being its reign of a Mughal Emperor Shrine and appurtenant building admittedly standing on disputed land Provincial Government having made formal grant of land already Waqf and property remaining in neglected condition, take over by Auqaf Department not unjustified‑‑‑Petitioner having no personal interest under S. 7, held not maintainable

M. Arif. Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ejaz Ahmed khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner,

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 12th March 1974.

‑The petitioner has become aggrieved by the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dismissing the former's appeal from the order of the learned District Judge, Lahore. The learned District Judge bad dismissed the petitioner's application under section 7 of the West Pakistan Waqf properties Ordinance, 1959, for a declaration that a part of the property covered by a certain grant was not waqf property.

The dispute is over 93 kanals and 1 marla of lend granted to the Shrine of Hazrat Khawaja Khawind Mahmoo situated in village Begumpura close to Bagabanpura in Lahore by a deed of; grant dated the 22nd of August, 1899. The property of the Shrine including the land in dispute was taken over by the Chief Administrator of Auqaf by Notification dated the 13th of February, 1961 issued under section 6, of the West Pakistan Waqf Proper ties Ordinance, 1959. Mian Abdul Rashid, father of the petitioner, who was then the mutwalli of the Shrine filed a petition under section 7 of the Ordi nance for a declaration that a part of the property of the Shrine viz. 93 kanals and 1 maral given to the Shrine under the aforesaid Grant by the Petition Government was not waqf property. During the pendency of the petition Mian Abdul Rashid died and his son the petitioner was substituted in the place of deceased in the ground that the petitioner was nominat ed by she deceased mutwalli is his successor. The petition under section was contested by the respondent on the grounds that Mian Abdul Rashid was not entitled file the petition and that the property was waqf under the Explanation to clause (d) of section 2 of the, said Ordinance.

The learned District, Judge accepted the first contention but rejected the second one. It was held inter alia alga, that the petitioner hid no locus standi to maintain the petitioner as mutwalli was not given any personal interest under the endowment.

The learned Single Judge on reference to the Grant (Exh. P. 2) found that at least 61 kanals and 12 marlas of the land in dispute has been in use from time immemorial for a purpose recognized by Islam as religious, pious or charitable. The learned Judge pointed out that the petition contained the admission that the Shrine comprising the mausoleum, and other building surrounding it had come into being ill the reign of Emperor Shah Jehan, Furthermore the petitioner admitted that the Shrine and the appurtenant buildings stood on the dispute land. The learned Judge has found that the Government of Punjab had made a formal grant of land which was already waqf property and had remained o a neglected condition. He accordingly held that the lands in dispute was waqf property. The learned Judge agreed with the learned "District Judge shat petitioner had no personal interest under the waqf would not maintain the petition under section 7 which entitles a person claiming an interest in any waqf Property to file a petitioner there under.

We are unable to find any fault with the impugned order of the High Court. The petition is accordingly dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.