Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gram Panchayat Of Vill. Budho Pandher vs Punjab Wakf Board, Chd & Ors on 21 November, 2024
Author: Sureshwar Thakur
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur, Sudeepti Sharma
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:155220-DB
CR-1812-2014 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR-1812-2014 (O&M)
Reserved on: 06.11.2024
Date of Decision : 21.11.2024
GRAM PANCHAYAT OF VILLAGE BUDHO PUNDHER
...Petitioner
V/S
PUNJAB WAKF BOARD AND OTHERS
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present : Mr. Satinder Khanna, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. G.N. Malik, Advocate for respondent No.1.
***
SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.
1. Through the instant civil revision the petitioner seeks the
quashing and setting aside of the impugned judgment and decree dated
25.11.2013, passed by Addl. District Judge (Tribunal Constituted under
Section 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995), Kapurthala, (hereinafter referred to as
'the Tribunal') whereby, the learned Tribunal accepted the suit for
declaration and permanent injunction and the defendant No.1 therein
(petitioner herein) was restrained from interfering into the peaceful
possession of the plaintiff over the property, in dispute illegally and forcibly.
Facts of the case
2. The Punjab Wakf Board instituted a suit for declaration and
permanent injunction to the effect that Punjab Wakf Board is the owner of
the property in dispute and is in possession through its tenants and suit for
1 of 18
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:155220-DB
CR-1812-2014 (O&M) -2-
permanent injunction restraining defendant No.1 (petitioner herein) from
interfering illegally and forcibly.
3. The said suit decreed vide impugned judgment dated
25.11.2013, for declaration and permanent injunction and the defendant
No.1 (petitioner herein) was restrained from interfering into the peaceful
possession of the plaintiff over the property, in dispute illegally and forcibly.
4. The question of law which requires determination relates to the
jurisdiction of the Additional Commissioner to make Annexure A-1, besides
relates to whether the jurisdictional competence became vested in the
Tribunal constituted under Section 3 of the Wakf Act, 1995.
5. The dispute relates to the purported illegal occupation being
made of the suit property which has been declared in Ex.P-4 as became
referred in the judgment passed by the Tribunal concerned, as Takia,
graveyard and the Maszid, and the said was donated by Maharaja
Kapurthala. In consequence, to the said entry vide notification dated
11.09.1971, the disputed property was given to the Wakf Board. The said
notification is referred in the verdict drawn by the Tribunal as Ex.P-3.
6. The aggrieved filed an application for correction of the (supra)
entries before the Revenue Authorities concerned, but their application as
well as their appeal became dismissed. The said dismissal orders become
referred in the verdict drawn by the Tribunal concerned, respectively as
Ex.R-2 and as R-3. In the verdict of the Tribunal an unrefuted observation
occurs that the Gram Panchayat had admitted that the property in dispute
was given by the Maharaja Sahib, Kapurthala to Nikke Sha, Slamat Sha sons
of Sube Shah on 14 Katak 1922. Furthermore, an unrefuted observation also
occurs therein that both the (supra) on the happening of the partition of
2 of 18
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:155220-DB
CR-1812-2014 (O&M) -3-
India, migrated to Pakistan. Subsequently, the land was mutated in the name
of the Gram Panchayat. However, after partition a re-survey was conducted
in the year 1966, and the apposite Misl Haqiat referred to as Ex.P4 in the
verdict drawn by the Tribunal concerned, became prepared wherebys in the
ownership column the State was declared to be the owner, whereas, in the
relevant classification column the property was described as Maszid,
graveyard and Takia.
7. The (supra) revenue entry describing the disputed property as
Gair Mumkin Maszid, Takia as well as graveyard, resulted in the Wakf
Tribunal, thus passing the impugned judgment.
8. The impugned judgment is grooved in the verdict made by the
Apex Court in case titled as Syed Mohd. Salie Labbai (dead) by LRs and
others V. Mohd. Hanifa (dead) by LRs and others, and to which Civil
Appeal Nos.1223-1224, and Civil Appeal No.2026 of 1968 becomes
assigned.
9. The rules underlined therein for determination whether a
graveyard is a public or a private one become extracted hereinafter.
"We are of the view that once a Kabarstan has been held to be a
public graveyard then it vests in the public and constitutes a wakf
and it cannot be divested by non-user but will always continue to
be so whether it is used or not.
The following rules in order to determine whether a graveyard
is a public or a private one may be stated:
(1) that even though there may be no direct evidence of
dedication to the public, it may be presumed to be a
public graveyard by immemorial user i.e. where corpses
of the members of the Mahomedan community have been
buried in a particular graveyard for a large number of
years without any objection from the owner. The fact that
the owner permits such burials will not make any
difference at all;
3 of 18
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:155220-DB
CR-1812-2014 (O&M) -4-
(2) that if the grave-yard is a private a family grave-yard
then it should contain the graves of only the founder, the
members of his family or his descendants and no others.
Once even in a family grave-yard members of the public
are allowed to bury their dead, the private graveyard
sheds its character and becomes a public grave-yard;
(3) that in order to prove that a graveyard is public by
dedication it must be shown by multiplying instances of
the character, nature and extent of the burials from time
to time. In other words, there should be evidence to show
that a large number of members of the Mahomedan
community had buried their corpses from time to time in
the graveyard. Once this is proved, the Court will
presume that the graveyard is a public one; and
(4) that where a burial ground is mentioned as a public
graveyard in either a revenue or historical papers that
would be a conclusive proof to show the public character
of the graveyard."
(5) In addition, whether the said conclusivity of proof qua the
existence of a graveyard on the petition lands, did curtail, and,
fetter the rights, if any, of the panchayat(s) concerned, to yet
lawfully permit its user for some other purpose, given in the
relevant column of ownership, the land(s) being described as
Shamilat Deh ?
(6) Whether in the face of the apposite notifications declaring the
petition property, as Wakf property(ies), thus there was a complete
ouster of jurisdiction of the Collector concerned, under the Punjab
Act, and/or concomitantly whether the Wakf Tribunal concerned,
alone held the jurisdictional competence to decide the controversy
inter se the litigants concerned ?"
10. Be that as it may, it is required to be determined whether in the
face of the verdict made by Hon'ble Apex Court in case Syed Mohd. Salie
Labbai (dead) by LRs and others V. Mohd. Hanifa (dead) by LRs and
others, thus the revenue entry (supra) makes the disputed property to be of a
public character, wherebys it concomitantly becomes a Wakf property,
besides as a corollary thereto the jurisdictional competence to decide the lis
4 of 18
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:155220-DB
CR-1812-2014 (O&M) -5-
vested respectively in the Wakf Tribunal or in the Collector constituted
under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961.
Submissions of the learned counsel for the Gram Panchayat concerned.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the Gram Panchayat
concerned, has submitted with much vigour before this Court;
(i) That the verdict, as made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ranjit
Singh versus State of Punjab 1965(1) SCR 82, when carries an
expostulation of law, qua with the Punjab Act, 1953, becoming
enacted as a measure of agrarian reform, and, thus, receiving the
protection of article 31(a) of the Constitution. Moreover, when it also
becomes expostulated thereins, that when consequently, it is made in
pursuance to the Legislative powers, as ably exercised by the
competent State Legislative Assembly, in respect of Entry No. 18 of
the State List, thereupon the said enacted State law, is required to be
given the fullest effect, as thus, it would cater to the needs of the
village community, and, would also secure its welfare, besides hence
the said enacted State law, inasmuch as, the Punjab Act, 1953 would
hold precedence, and, prevalence over the Administration of Evacuee
Property Act, 1950, and/or over the Wakf Act of 1954. Relevant
paragraph thereof becomes extracted hereinafter.
"Entry No. 18- Land, that is to say, rights in or over land,
land tenures including the relation of landlord and tenant,
and the collection of rents; transfer and alienation of
agricultural land; land improvement and agricultural loans;
colonisation."
(ii) Therefore, he makes a consequent argument, that the Collector
concerned, alone held the empowered jurisdiction to make a decision
in respect of the lis at hand, and, that the exercise of jurisdiction by
5 of 18
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:155220-DB
CR-1812-2014 (O&M) -6-
the Wakf Tribunal concerned, rather being untenable. Consequently,
he has argued before this Court, that the Civil Revision Petition
(supra), be dismissed on the above score. Contrarily, he submits that
the verdict (Annexure A-1) recorded by the learned Addl.
Commissioner concerned, thus be affirmed by this Court.
(iii) He further submits, that irrespective of an entry in the
classification column of the relevant revenue records, rather
unfolding, qua the lands becoming described thereins, as Takia,
graveyard and Maszid, but yet when in the relevant column of
ownership, the land has been described as "Shamilat Deh", or being
owned by the Gram Panchayat concerned. Therefore, he also
contends, that the jurisdiction to try the lis at hand, was solitarily
vested in the authorities contemplated, in the Punjab Act of 1953, and,
that the Punjab Wakf Tribunal was not vested with any jurisdiction
over the petition properties.
(iv) The learned counsel for the Gram Panchayat concerned, makes
a further submission, that since there is no inconsequentiality of entry
of Takia, graveyard and Maszid, as assigned qua the petition land,
therebys the issuance of notification(s) under Section 5 of the Act,
also being rendered non est. The above argument is further rested,
upon the factum, that prior to the issuance of the apposite
notifications, no notice was served, upon the Gram Panchayat
concerned. Therefore, when it became issued in violation of the
principles of natural justice, thus, it has no force in the eyes of law.
(v) He also submits, that the above vice gripping the issuance of the
apposite notification(s) rather makes the Civil Revision Petitions
6 of 18
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:155220-DB
CR-1812-2014 (O&M) -7-
(supra), as directed against the verdict, made by the Punjab Wakf
Tribunal, to be yet maintainable before this Court, reiteratedly as the
said verdict is also non est.
Submissions of the learned counsel for the Wakf Board
12. The learned counsel appearing for the Wakf Board submits,
with much force before this Court;
(i) That since the above entry, manifested itself in the misl hakiat
drawn during the phase of settlement proceedings, being conducted in
the mohal concerned, but with a corresponding entry (supra) in the
column of classification. Therefore, on the strength of the said entry
the learned counsel for the Wakf Board submits that in terms of a
decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, rendered in Syed Mohd.
Salie Labbai's case (supra), whereins in clause (4) thereof, clause
whereof becomes extracted hereinabove, the apposite thereto
expostulation of law occurs. Consequently, he further submits, that
since the revenue records relating to the petition lands, do vividly
suggest, that they become classified as Takia, graveyard and
Maszid. Thus, he submits, that when the judgment (supra) assigns
conclusivity to the said entry, as such, the said entry would constitute
conclusive proof qua hence on the petition land, a public graveyard
existing. Therefore, he submits, that the above reflection in the
relevant revenue records, is but imminently conclusive about truth of
such an echoing, thereupon, the said situation was required to become
ensured to be ever existing even on the site. Consequently, he
submits, that the factual situation at the relevant site, was required to
be perennially carrying consonance with the assigning of conclusivity,
7 of 18
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:155220-DB
CR-1812-2014 (O&M) -8-
to an entry in the classification column of the relevant revenue
records, rather declaring the petition lands as Takia, graveyard and
Maszid. Thus, he submits, that the character, and, nature of the
petition lands, was not required to be ever altered in any manner.
(ii) In consequence, the learned counsel further submits, that the
clear, and, candid declaration(s), in the revenue entries qua the petition
lands being classified, as Takia, graveyard and Maszid, and/or a
graveyard, meant for the user of the Muslim community, rather
existing thereons, do thereupon, rather make the said descriptions, as,
assigned to the petition lands, to be conclusive proof. In other words,
he submits, that with imminent conclusivity becoming assigned to the
above revenue entries, thereupon, the said revenue entries can never
be eroded, nor the prolonged purported non-user of the relevant site,
for the relevant purpose, by the Muslim community, rather cannot
capacitate the Gram Panchayat concerned, or the revenue authorities
concerned, to through any mode, make an alteration of the said
indefeasible conclusivity, assigned to the disputed lands. Thus, he
submits that the column of ownership describing the petition land as
'shamlat deh' becomes eclipsed, by the said entry in the column of
classification, as carried in the relevant revenue records.
(iii) The learned counsel for the Wakf Board also submits, before
this Court, that since the relevant notifications, as issued under
Section 5 of the Central Act of 1954, nomenclatured as the Wakf Act,
are expostulated, in paragraph 14 of the judgment, rendered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court, in Punjab Wakf Board versus Raj Rani (died)
through LRs, and, to which Civil Appeal No. 295 of 2005, paragraph
8 of 18
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:155220-DB
CR-1812-2014 (O&M) -9-
whereof extracted hereinafter, to render their issuance under Section 5
of the Wakf Act of 1954, conspicuously in the absence of any
challenge being made thereto, to become hence clothed, through the
mandate occurring in Section 81 of the Evidence Act, with an aura of
presumption, with regard to their genuineness. Therefore, he submits,
that there was no requirement of any notice being issued to the Gram
Panchayat concerned, prior to the making of the said notification(s).
"14. Admittedly, no one challenged the genuineness of the
Notification whereby the suit property was declared as Wakf
property at any stage of the proceeding. In the absence of such
challenge, the Court shall have to draw presumption with
regard to the genuineness of the Notification, as provided under
Section 81 of the Evidence Act. Moreover, neither the first
Appellate Court nor the High Court has considered and noticed
the provisions of Section 5 of the Wakf Act, 1995 (Section 5 of
the Old Wakf Act, 1954)."
(iv) The learned counsel further submits, that the requirement of any
notice being issued to the Gram Panchayat concerned, prior to the
issuance of the said notifications, by the competent authority, through
the exercising of powers under Section 5 of the Wakf Act, 1954, also
did not ever become aroused. The reason which he assigns for the
above, becomes hinged upon the factum, that since in the judgment,
rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Syed Mohd. Salie Labbai's
case (supra), rather the firmest conclusivity becomes assigned to the
entry in the revenue records, rather reflecting the petition lands, as,
Takia, graveyard and Maszid. Therefore, when the notifications, as
issued under Section 5 of the Act, were in complete consonance
thereto, thus no notice prior to the issuance of said notifications was
9 of 18
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:155220-DB
CR-1812-2014 (O&M) -10-
required, besides reiteratedly the said notifications were
unchallengable, as in the judgment made by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in Syed Mohd. Salie Labbai's case (supra), rather the firmest
conclusivity has been assigned to the said revenue entry.
(v) The learned counsel furthers submit, that the Punjab Wakf
Tribunal, alone held the jurisdiction to try the lis at hand, and, that the
statutory authorities contemplated under the Punjab Act, 1953, were
completely divested to either exercise jurisdiction or to make a valid
decision, upon the controversy(ies) concerned.
Reasons for accepting the submissions of the learned counsel for the
Wakf Board, and, for rejecting the submissions of the learned counsel
for Gram Panchayat concerned.
13. For the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, this Court accepts the
submissions, as addressed before this Court by the learned counsel for the
Wakf Board, and, rejects the submissions, as addressed before this Court, by
the learned counsel for the Gram Panchayat concerned.
14. Importantly, the centralized focus of the learned counsel for the
Gram Panchayat concerned, is upon the verdict, as made by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Gram Panchayat of village Jamalpur's case (supra).
15. On the basis of the above judgment, he makes an effort to
deprive the exercising(s) of jurisdiction, by the Punjab Wakf Tribunal, upon
the apposite controversy. Moreover, he also, on the basis of an entry of
Shamilat Deh, or being owned by the Gram Panchayat concerned, occurring
in the relevant revenue records, make an effort to make inconsequential, the
entry in the column of classification, whereins, the petition lands, are
classified as Takia, graveyard and Maszid. The above made effort is
completely misfounded. The reason for making the above inference,
10 of 18
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:155220-DB
CR-1812-2014 (O&M) -11-
becomes anchored upon the factum, that though in Gram Panchayat of
village Jamalpur's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court had assigned
precedence, and, prevalence to the Punjab Act, 1953, over the
Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950. Therefore, it is but obvious,
that the conflict in the above case or repugnancy in the above case arose, not
in respect of exercising(s) of jurisdictions, respectively by the Wakf Board
concerned, and/or by the statutory authorities concerned, as, contemplated in
the Punjab Act, 1953.
16. Contrarily, the repugnancy which arose in the case (supra),
squarely appertained qua the inter se jurisdictional competence of the
Custodian under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, and, the
statutory authorities contemplated under the Punjab Act, 1953. Therefore,
when the foundational matrix of the instant case, relates to the competing
claims qua exercisings of jurisdiction rather by the authorities contemplated
in the Punjab Act, 1953, and, by the statutory mechanism(s), created under
the Central Law concerned, nomenclatured as the Wakf Act, 1954. Thus, but
obviously the above extant controversy, is at the outset, completely contra-
distinct, with the controversy which beset the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gram
Panchayat of village Jamalpur's case (supra). Resultantly, also the verdict
(supra), as made by the Hon'ble Apex Court may not, to the fullest, hold any
effect viz-a-viz the facts at hand.
17. Even if assuming the Punjab Act, 1953, has been declared in
verdict (supra), to become enacted by the State Legislature, through the
exercising of valid apposite Legislative competence, vested in it, through
Entry No. 18, as carried in the State List, inasmuch as, it has been declared
to be enacted as a measure of agrarian reform, and/or, to ensure the welfare
11 of 18
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:155220-DB
CR-1812-2014 (O&M) -12-
of the village community. Moreover, though it has also been pronounced
thereins, that hence the said entry enjoys the protection of Article 31-A of
the Constitution of India. Though, further it has also been held thereins, that
hence precedence is to be assigned to the State enacted law, over the
apposite Central Law. However, the competing exercisings of jurisdiction in
the case (supra) was not inter se the Wakf Tribunal, created under the Central
Law, and/or, by the statutory authorities contemplated in the Punjab Act
concerned. Moreover, the lands in the case (supra) were described in the
relevant revenue records, as "Shamilat Deh" or being owned by the Gram
Panchayat concerned.
18. However, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in verdict (supra) declared,
that irrespective of the lands thereins, being described as shamilat deh, in the
relevant revenue records, but when there is a further entry thereins,
describing the lands as Hasab Rasad Khewat. Therefore, the latter entry
conferred rights of cultivation in the cultivators concerned, but only in
proportion to the other lands, which they own/owned in the mohal or village
concerned. It appears that the Punjab Act, 1953 was, in the face of the above
entries, assigned precedence over the Administration of Evacuee Property
Act, 1950, and, the said assigning of precedence, does appear to become
engendered from the factum, that with the happening of partition of the
Country, in the year 1947, thus led the Muslims to migrate from India to
Pakistan.
19. The Muslim migrants, in the said year, from India to Pakistan,
in the garb of an entry of Hasab Rasad Khewat carried in the revenue
records, through earlier to 1947, became statutorily vested with the right to
hold cultivating possession of the lands concerned, but the said cultivating
12 of 18
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:155220-DB
CR-1812-2014 (O&M) -13-
right of possession as held prior to 1953, rather became extinguished
through the Punjab Act of 1953. Therefore, in other words, when otherwise
in respect of the above described lands, they could, but after coming into
force of the Punjab Act, 1953, hence save the vestment(s) of the said land(s),
in the Panchayat concerned, but yet only when they were, prior to 1953,
citizens of India, and/or, had not migrated to Pakistan, when the partition of
the country, occurred after 1947. It appears that in case they did migrate to
Pakistan, and, ceased to cultivate the lands as described in the revenue
records, as Hasab Rasad Khewat. Resultantly, the effect of the cultivators
concerned, ceasing to make cultivations of the lands, in the year 1947,
obviously did not make such lands to become saved from vestment under the
Punjab Act, 1953, as they did not fulfill the requisite condition(s) of theirs
continuously, prior to 1950 or 1953, as the case may be, rather keep lawful
cultivating possession of the lands concerned.
20. Therefore, it was held that the lands, described in the relevant
revenue records as Hasab Rasad Khewat, or being owned by the Gram
Panchayat concerned, and, which became cultivated by the Muslim
community upto 1947, but on the happening of partition of the country, in
the year 1947, rather with the Muslim cultivators concerned, leaving for
Pakistan. Resultantly, the lands with the said descriptions, could not become
capitalized, by the migrants from Pakistan to India, to either cultivate the
said land or to save them from vestment in the Panchayat Deh, rather it
became amenable for common user by the Panchayat deh, as then rather it
became vested in the Panchayat deh. Moreover, it appears, that in the verdict
(supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court, had chosen to assign jurisdictional
competence to the custodian concerned, but only under the Evacuee Property
13 of 18
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:155220-DB
CR-1812-2014 (O&M) -14-
Act, and, only in respect of those lands of the migrant Muslims from India to
Pakistan, besides subject to the said lands not being entered in the revenue
records as Hasab Rasad Khewat, and, also subject to the migrant Muslim
community from India to Pakistan, hence not lawfully cultivating the said
lands. In other words, the lands other than the lands, described in the
relevant revenue records, as Hasab Rasad Khewat, were but subject to
compliance with the other dire statutory conditions, hence made amenable
for being treated as evacuee property, and, also the jurisdictional competence
to allot the said lands, to the migrants from Pakistan to India, was
exercisable by the custodian concerned.
21. Pointedly the description of the land(s) concerned, in the
judgment (supra), is Hasab Rasad Khewat. The implication of the said entry,
irrespective of the fact, that it may have been, prior to 1947, cultivated by
the Muslim cultivators, who however on the happening of the partition of
the Country in 1947, may have migrated from India to Pakistan, but the
verdict (supra), does not cover the further aspect, which is the foundational
fact in the instant case, inasmuch as, it does not encompass the classification
assigned to the petition lands, in the classification column of the relevant
jamabandis. The classification assigned in the revenue records to the petition
lands, is Takia, graveyard and Maszid. The said classification assigned, to
the petition lands, but naturally makes the petition lands, to be construable,
as a site sacred to the Muslims, and, but as a further natural corollary, it
cannot be deemed to be the subject matter of any competent alienation(s)
being made by any authority to any person.
22. In consequence, the judgment (supra), does not for reasons
(supra), settle the competing jurisdictional competence(s), respectively of
14 of 18
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:155220-DB
CR-1812-2014 (O&M) -15-
the authorities under the Punjab Act concerned, and, of the Wakf Tribunal,
created under the Central Law, to try the lis in respect of the petition lands,
rather described in the relevant revenue records, as Takia, graveyard and
Maszid. The said judgment (supra) erases the right, title, and, interest of
Muslim migrants from India to Pakistan, and/or of those Muslims, who left
India for Pakistan in the year 1947, and who were prior thereto in the garb of
an entry of Hasab Rasad Khewat, existing in the relevant revenue records,
hence making lawful cultivation of the lands concerned.
23. In any case, the above discussion, is only made for academic
purposes and has but a minimal consequentiality vis-a-vis the subject at
hand.
Applicability of the judgment of Syed Mohd. Salie Labbai's case (supra)
24. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Syed Mohd. Salie
Labbai's case (supra), when is aplomb to the foundational strata, as
appertaining to the instant lis, inasmuch as, in the relevant paragraph thereof,
which becomes extracted hereinabove, a clear and vivid pronouncement,
becomes carried, qua the description(s) of the lands, as Takia, graveyard
and Maszid, in the relevant revenue records, rather constituting conclusive
proof of the character, and, nature of the petition lands. Therefore, the
notification issued under Section 5 of the Act, declaring the petition
property(ies), as Wakf property, was but in tandem therewith. Moreover, the
effect, if any, of the Panchayats concerned, being not served with a notice by
the authorities concerned, prior to the issuance of the apposite notifications,
is but completely meaningless, and, is also insignificant.
25. Consequently, when Syed Mohd. Salie Labbai's case (supra),
conclusivity has been assigned to truth of the entry, carried in the
15 of 18
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:155220-DB
CR-1812-2014 (O&M) -16-
classification column, describing the land concerned, as Takia, graveyard
and Maszid, besides when the said entry has been declared to prevail or
hold precedence over any entry of Shamlat Deh, as occurring in the revenue
records concerned. Thus, the entry of Shamilat Deh as exists in the relevant
revenue records, is of the least legal significance, nor does it erode the
conclusivity of truth, as becomes assigned to the entry of Takia, graveyard
and Maszid, nor the jurisdictional competence to try the lis, is vested in the
statutory authorities, contemplated in the Punjab Act, rather the
jurisdictional competence to try the lis, solitarily vests in the Punjab Wakf
Tribunal.
26. The upshot of the above conclusion, is that the issuance of the
notification(s) under Section 5 of the Act, do hold legal weightage, and, as
but a natural corollary, the jurisdictional competence to try the lis became
vested in the Wakf Tribunal concerned, than in the authorities contemplated
in the Punjab Act concerned.
Conclusion
27. The effect of the above is that, the entry in the classification
column of the relevant revenue entry, enjoys precedence over the entry in the
revenue records describing the petition lands as Shamlat Deh. The further
concomitant effect thereof, is that, the notifications issued under Section 5 of
the Act, declaring the petition lands, as Wakf property, were validly made
notifications, as the same are in complete tandem therewith. Furthermore,
also non issuance of any notice by the competent authority concerned, upon
the Gram Panchayat concerned, imperatively prior to the making of the said
notifications, is inconsequential, nor the makings of the said notifications,
16 of 18
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:155220-DB
CR-1812-2014 (O&M) -17-
becomes stained from any vice arising from any non-adherence, if any, being
made to the principles of natural justice.
28. The jurisdictional competence to try the lis becomes solitarily
vested in the Punjab Wakf Tribunal, as constituted under the Central Act
concerned, and, the statutory authorities contemplated under the Punjab Act
concerned, do not have any jurisdictional competence to try the lis.
Principles
29. (1) The judgment in Ranjit Singh's case (supra) holds force
only in respect of repugnancy or a conflict arising inter se
the jurisdictional competence of the Custodian under the
Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, rather
with the statutory authorities contemplated under the
Punjab Act, 1953. The said judgment does not hold force
in respect of an entry in the revenue records declaring the
disputed land as Takia, graveyard and Maszid.
(2) Moreover, any entry in the revenue records declaring the
land as Takia, graveyard and Maszid, enjoys
conclusivity, and, is required to be ensured to be protected
even at the site concerned, despite evidence of purported
prolonged non-user thereof by the Muslim community.
30. Resultantly, when the verdict pronounced by the Tribunal
concerned, is within the boundaries of the competent jurisdiction, vested in
it, besides when the Tribunal concerned, became so constituted, in terms of a
notification dated 11.09.1971, wherebys there was a bar against the exercise
of jurisdiction of the present subject matter by the Civil Court, besides even
by the Collector exercising jurisdiction under the Punjab Village Common
17 of 18
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:155220-DB
CR-1812-2014 (O&M) -18-
Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. As such, there is no legal consequentiality to
the verdict (Annexure A-1), as made by the Addl. Commissioner concerned,
exercising the jurisdiction of a Collector under the Punjab Village Common
Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961.
31. In aftermath, this Court finds no merit in the instant revision
petition, and, with the above observations, the same is dismissed.
(SURESHWAR THAKUR)
JUDGE
21.11.2024 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
Ithlesh JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
18 of 18
