RSA-329-1996 (O& IN T 202
Punjab Wakf Boa Gurdwara Sahib CORAM : HON Present: Mr. Mr. for t
Mr. Mr. for t *** AMARINDER S 1. The judgment and de the suit for decl 05.10.1995 pass preferred by the d learned trial Cou 2. For their status befor 3. Succ be the owner in 6 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGA kf Board, Ambala Cantt Versus
Sahib Add MazamTaraf, Sudhar Chog HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAR Mr. Lalit Singla, Advocate and
Mr. Varsha Sharma, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. Prabjot Singh Chahal, Advocate Mr. G.S. Nagra, Advocate,
for the respondent.
***
DER SINGH GREWAL, J. The defendant is the appellant be nd decree dated 19.05.1992 passed by r declaration filed by the plaintiff-re passed by the learned 1stAppellat y the defendant against the aforesaid j l Court, has also been dismissed. For the sake of convenience, the par before the trial court. Succinctly, the facts of the case wer er in possession of the suit land, whe PUNJAB AND HARYANA
DIGARH
RSA No.329-1996 (O&M) Reserved on: 09.04.2026
Pronounced on:23.04.2026 Uploaded on:24.04.2026
... Appella Chogawan, District Amritsar. ...Respondent
MARINDER SINGH GREWAL vocate and
ant before this Court, challenging t ssed by the learned trial Court decreei respondent and the judgment dat ppellate Court vide which the appe esaid judgment and decree passed by t the parties shall be referred to in terms se were that the plaintiff claimed itself d, whereas the defendant was alleged 2026 ppellant
ging the ecreeing nt dated e appeal ed by the terms of itself to lleged to PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.04.24 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-329-1996 (O& have no right, tit wrongly mutated by the Governm defendant, was il the suit property had it ever been u or charitable, and further averred th who was not inte pleaded that no o issuance of the n plaintiff was stat through its Mana Singh and leased further pleaded th (hereinafter refer granting 60 days the present suit. 4. Upo counsel and cont that the plaintiff the suit property notification issue the plaintiff, and Wakf Board, as t 6 (O&M) -2- ght, title or interest therein. It was pl utated in the name of the defendant a vernment declaring the property as was illegal, void and without authority operty had neither been dedicated by been used for purposes recognized un le, and thus, it could not have been d rred that such notification adversely a ot interested in the Wakf and was no at no opportunity of hearing had been f the notification, thereby violating the as stated to have remained in possess Manager, and previously, the propert sed out by the Managing Comm aded that a notice under Section 56 of r referred to as the Act of 1955) had 0 days to admit the claim, but to no a suit. Upon issuance of summons, the d contested the suit by filing a written aintiff had no concern whatsoever with roperty had been validly declared a n issued by the Central Government, w ff, and that the mutation had been ri rd, as the property originally belonged was pleaded that the suit land had be dant and that any notification, if issu rty as Wakf property in favour of t thority of law. The plaintiff asserted th ted by any person professing Islam n zed under Muslim law as pious, religio been declared as Wakf property. It w rsely affected the rights of the plainti was not bound by the same. It was al d been afforded to the plaintiff prior ing the principles of natural justice. T ossession of the suit property as own roperty had been managed by Sh. Am Committee to different persons. It w 56 of the Punjab Wakf Board Act,19 had been served upon the defenda o no avail. Hence the plaintiff institut , the defendant appeared through ritten statement, wherein it was averr er with the suit land. It was pleaded th ared as Wakf property vide a Gaze ent, which was legal and binding up een rightly sanctioned in favour of t onged to a Muslim, who had migrated had been if issued r of the rted that slam nor religious y. It was plaintiff, was also prior to tice. The as owner h. Amar s. It was Act,1995 efendant, instituted ough its s averred aded that Gazette ing upon r of the grated to PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.04.24 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-329-1996 (O& Pakistan. The au lease out the prop was in possessio on the grounds th it was contende authorised perso Gurdwara nor did notice under Sec form. Additional and jurisdiction, not assessed to l submitted that th On these premis dismissed. 5. On t nine issues incl evidence produce and the appeal p Court. Hence, the 6. Lear judgments and de facts on record respondent was Central Governm learned Courts be 6 (O&M) -3- he authority of the alleged Managin he property was specifically denied, an session of the Board through its tenan unds that the plaintiff had no locus sta ntended that the plaint had not been person, as Gurpartap Singh was ne nor did any such committee exist and t er Section 56 of the Act of 1955 and w itionally, it had not been properly val ction, as ad valorem court fee was lia d to land revenue and the suit was b at the plaintiff was not in possessio premises, the suit was stated to be On the basis of pleadings, learned t s including relief. On appreciation roduced before it, the learned trial Co peal preferred by defendant was dism ce, the regular second appeal. Learned counsel for the appellan and decrees passed by the learned Co ecord and are liable to be set aside. t was bound by the notification dated overnment declaring the disputed p urts below have wrongly discarded th anaging Committee of the Gurdwara ied, and it was asserted that the suit la s tenants. The suit was further contest cus standi to file the same. Furthermo t been signed and verified by a du as neither the Manager of the alleg t and the suit was bad for want of prop and was not maintainable in its prese rly valued for the purposes of court f was liable to be paid since the land w was barred by limitation. Lastly, it w session of any part of the suit proper to be false, frivolous and liable to rned trial Court had framed as many ation of oral as well as documenta ial Court allowed the suit of the plaint s dismissed by the learned 1stAppella ppellant–defendant contended that t ed Courts below are contrary to law a aside. It was argued that the plaintif dated 09.01.1971(Ex.D1) issued by t ted property as Wakf property. T ded the said notification, as being issu dwara to suit land ontested hermore, a duly alleged of proper s present court fee land was y, it was property. le to be many as mentary plaintiff ppellate that the law and plaintiff– d by the . The g issued PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.04.24 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-329-1996 (O& in violation of th as a khangah khu make an enquiry a wakf. The not property draws a provided under S contention, he re in Ajit Pal Singh others 2023:PHH regarding leasing respondent-plain no evidentiary v alleged oral gift neither valid nor effect such trans plaintiff on that b failed to proper established the d evidence on rec property to Kash its tenants. The p property and tha valid notification impugned judgm respondent. 6 (O&M) -4- n of the principle of natural justice. khudabakash wali panahi kadeem nquiry before declaring the said proper he notification issued whereby the sui raws a presumption with regard to g nder Section 81 of the Indian Evide , he relied upon the judgment passed ingh Vs. Director, Rural Developm :PHHC:081299-DB. Further, it was easing out of the property, as well a plaintiff, were forged, fabricated and iary value in the eyes of law. Furthe al gift by Shri Makhan Singh in favo lid nor legally sustainable, as the sai transfer, and consequently, no righ that basis. Additionally, it was urged properly appreciate and interpret th the disputed property to be Wakf pr on record to show that the appella Kashmir Singh, thereby proving poss he plaintiff–respondent was neither nd that the same had rightly been dec ication. Therefore, the appeal deserves judgments and decrees and dismi ice. In fact, the suit property was show em and thus, there was no necessity property as wakf. Once a wakf is alwa the suit property was declared as a wa d to genuineness of the notification, Evidence Act, 1872. In support of h assed by a Division Bench of this Co lopment and Panchayats, Punjab a it was submitted that the alleged reco well as the receipts relied upon by t ed and inadmissible in evidence, havi Furthermore, it was contended that t n favour of the respondent-plaintiff the said Makhan Singh had no right o right, title or interest accrued to t urged that the learned Courts below h ret the revenue record, which clea akf property, and that there was coge ppellant–defendant had leased out t g possession of the Wakf Board throu either owner nor in possession of the s en declared as Wakf property through serves to be allowed by setting aside t dismissing the suit of the plaintif as shown essity to is always s a wakf ation, as of his is Court ab and d record n by the , having that the was right to d to the elow had clearly s cogent out the through f the suit hrough a aside the plaintiff– PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.04.24 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-329-1996 (O& 7. Per the judgments a proper appreciati call for any interf below had retur respondent-plain appellant-defend for any pious, rel was duly proved Makhan Singh t thereafter, in all s respondent-plain he relied upon t Muslim Burial others (2023) 16 survey of wakf h enquiry as may Government abo Government by a be conducted. arising thereto h shall forward it t publish the list contemplated un 6 (O&M) -5- Per contra, learned counsel for the r ents and decrees passed by the learn reciation of evidence and correct app interference in the present appeal. It w returned well-reasoned and concurr plaintiff to be the owner in posse efendant had miserably failed to pro us, religious or charitable purpose by proved by the respondent-plaintiff tha ingh to the respondent-plaintiff vide in all subsequent revenue entries i.e. ja plaintiff/Gurdwara has been shown t upon the judgment passed by the H rial Ground Protection Committee 3) 16 SCC 264 to argue that before wakf has to be conducted and the Sur s may be deemed necessary, shall nt about certain factors enumerate nt by a notification in the official Gaz ted. Once the above procedure of sur reto have been settled, on receipt of rd it to the Wakf Board. The Wakf B e list of wakfs in existence with par ted under Section 5 of the Act. How r the respondent-plaintiff contended th e learned Courts below were based ct application of law, and thus, did n eal. It was submitted that both the Cou oncurrent findings of fact, holding t possession of the suit property. to prove dedication of the suit prope ose by anyone professing Islam, rather tiff that the property was gifted by o ff vide oral gift dated 06.07.1949 a s i.e. jamabandies i.e. Ex.P25 to P28, own to be owner in possession. Last the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sale ittee Vs. State of Tamil Nadu a before declaring a property as wakf he Survey Commission, after making shall submit its report to the Sta merated therein whereupon the Sta ial Gazette direct for a second survey of survey is completed and the dispu ipt of the report, the State Governme akf Board on examining the same sh ith particulars in the official gazette However, in the instant case, no su nded that based on , did not e Courts ding the The property rather it d by one 949 and 28, the Lastly, Salem u and wakf, a aking an he State he State urvey to disputes ernment me shall azette as no such PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.04.24 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-329-1996 (O& procedure was ca same was rightly 8. I ha paper book as we 9. The to the procedure wakf. The statuto survey by the Su submission of a consideration of publishing the lis failed to place procedure was ev the absence of co subsequent notifi proof of the suit evidence brought suit property as w DW-1 Mohd. Sa cross-examinatio 1986-87 to Kash 1986-87 and sub was shown to 09.01.1971 (Ex.D 6 (O&M) -6- was carried out before issuance of the rightly rejected by both the learned Co I have heard learned counsel for as well as the case laws cited with the The statutory scheme under the Act edure prescribed under Section 4 and 5 statutory scheme of Section 4 of the the Survey Commissioner, a due inqu of a report to the State Governme ion of such report and settlement o the list of wakfs therein. In the presen place any material on record to d was ever followed prior to the issuanc compliance with the foundational t notification under Section 5 cannot b suit land being wakf. In the case rought on record that such procedure w ty as wakf property vide notification d hd. Sadiq, Estate Officer, Punjab Wa ination that for the first time, the pr Kashmir Singh, the alleged tenant nd subsequent thereto, it was the resp n to be owner in possession. Con (Ex.D1) cannot be treated as a valid o of the notification, Ex.D1 and thus, t ed Courts below. l for the parties and have perused ith their able assistance. Act of 1955 mandates strict adheren 4 and 5 prior to declaring any property of the Act of 1955, contemplates a pr e inquiry into the nature of the proper ernment and then only thereafter up ent of disputes, notification is issu present case the appellant–defendant h to demonstrate that such mandato suance of the notification in question tional requirements under Section 4, t nnot be sustained as valid or conclusi e case in hand, there is not an iota edure was ever followed in declaring t ation dated 09.01.1971 (Ex.D1). Rath jab Wakf Board, Amritsar stated in h the property was leased out in the ye tenant of appellant-defendant. Prior e respondent-plaintiff/Gurdwara, whi Consequently, the notification dat valid or conclusive proof of the suit la thus, the used the dherence operty as s a prior property, ter upon issued dant has andatory estion. In on 4, the nclusive n iota of aring the . Rather, n his the year Prior to a, which n dated suit land PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.04.24 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-329-1996 (O& being wakf. In (supra), the Hon’ “31 prov and deem cert by a cond disp Stat on e full 5 of 32. reve the proc prov subm Ther wak mat und was of su 5 of land proo reas said 6 (O&M) -7- In Salem Muslim Burial Groun e Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as u 31. The Wakf Act, 1954, which ac provides that, first, a preliminary su and the Survey Commission shal deemed necessary, submit its repo certain factors enumerated therein by a notification in the official Gaze conducted. Once the above procedu disputes arising thereto have been s State Government shall forward it to on examining the same shall publish full particulars in the official Gaze of the Act. Similar provisions exist 32. A plain reading of the provisi reveal that the notification under Se the list of the wakfs shall only be process as laid down under Sect provides for two surveys, settlement submission of the report to the Sta Therefore, conducting of the surve wakf property is a sine qua non. material or evidence on record under Section 5 of the Wakf Act, 19 was conducted as contemplated by of such a material, the mere issuanc of the Act would not constitute a land. Therefore, the notification da proof of the fact that the suit land reason probably that the appellant said notification into service up till 1 round Protection Committee’s ca ld as under:- h actually is relevant for our purpo ry survey of wakfs has to be conduct shall, after such inquiry as may report to the State Government abo rein whereupon the State Governme azette direct for a second survey to dure of survey is completed and t en settled, on receipt of the report, t it to the Wakf Board. The Wakf Boa blish the list of wakfs in existence w azette as contemplated under Secti exist under the Waqf Act, 1995. ovisions of the above two Acts wou Section 5 of both the Acts declari be published after completion of t Section 4 of the above Acts, whi ent of disputes arising thereto and t State Government and to the Boa urveys before declaring a property on. In the case at hand, there is ord that before issuing notificati t, 1954, any procedure or the surv by Section 4 of the Act. In the absen uance of the notification under Secti te a valid wakf in respect of the s n dated 29.04.1959 is not a conclus land is a wakf property. It is for t lant Committee had never pressed t till 1999.” case urpose, ducted ay be t about rnment y to be nd the ort, the Board ce with Section would claring of the which and the Board. perty a e is no ication survey bsence Section he suit clusive for this sed the PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.04.24 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-329-1996 (O& 10. Und primary mode b property by a pe or charitable. Suc or a section there inferred or presu or charitable pur The creation of unequivocal act direct evidence o wakf may be leg parties. In partic been consistently devoted to purpo a presumption of the manner in w basis to infer the declaration to tha 11. Ther the learned coun advance the case described as character of the established on th the principle onc 6 (O&M) -8- Under Muslim law, a wakf may ode being the permanent dedication y a person professing Islam for purpo le. Such dedication must be irrevocab n thereof. In the absence of an expres presumed from long and uninterrupte le purposes, provided such user is co ion of a wakf, though generally e al act of permanent dedication, need ence of such dedication. In appropriate be legitimately inferred from the surr particular, where a property has, ove istently treated, managed, and utilized purposes recognized as religious or pu on of valid dedication may arise. Suc r in which the property has been deal fer the creation of a wakf, even in the to that effect. Therefore, the reliance placed upon ounsel for the appellant–defendant e case of the appellant-defendant. In th Gair Mumkim Kabaristan/Maq f the land as a kabaristan and the u on the basis of consistent and uncon le once a wakf is always a wakf was d may be created in several ways, t ication of any movable or immovab purposes recognized as pious, religiou vocable and for the benefit of the pub express dedication, a wakf may also rrupted user of the property for religio r is consistent with the concept of wa ally effected through an express a need not in all cases be established opriate circumstances, the existence o he surrounding facts and conduct of t s, over a long and uninterrupted perio utilized as wakf property, and has be s or public charitable under Muslim la e. Such long-standing user, coupled w n dealt with, can thus furnish sufficie in the absence of any formal or expre upon Ajit Pal Singh’s case (supra) ndant is wholly misplaced and does n t. In the said case, the disputed land w Maqbooza Ahle Islam holding d the user of the said land as such w uncontroverted revenue entries. Thu was duly recognized and it was held th ays, the movable eligious, he public also be religious of wakf. ess and ished by ence of a ct of the d period, has been slim law, led with ufficient r express upra) by does not land was ing due uch was s. Thus, held that PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.04.24 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-329-1996 (O& character of the prolonged non- miserably failed dedicated by a pe as pious, religiou came into existen 87 in which one however, prior an been shown in th nothing on recor property through evidence that the 1955 was ever declaring the sui have rightly decr 12. In v Pankajakshi (De and others (201 (2019) 17 SCC Singh (dead) thr law are not requi High Court whos Punjab Courts Ac 13. In v find any merit 6 (O&M) -9- of the wakf property being a kabrist -user. However in the present c iled to prove the character of the sui by a person professing Islam for any p eligious or charitable purpose and in existence by long use. There is only o h one Kashmir Singh was shown to rior and subsequent thereto, in all rev n in the ownership and possession of record to establish that the suit prope rough long and immemorial user. Fu hat the procedure as contemplated un ever followed while issuing notific he suit property as wakf property, thu y decreed the suit of the respondent-pl In view of the judgments passed b i (Dead) through Legal Represent (2016) 6 SCC 157, Randhir Kaur V CC 71 and Gurbachan Singh (dea ) through LRs and others (2023) S t required to be framed in second appe t whose jurisdiction is circumscribed urts Act, 1918. In view of the aforesaid facts and c merit in the arguments raised by le bristan could not be diluted even sent case, the appellant-defendant h the suit property as khangah, which w r any purpose recognised by Muslim la nd in the absence of such dedication, only one revenue entry in the year 198 wn to be tenant under the Wakf Boa all revenue entries, the suit property h ion of the respondent-plaintiff. There t property acquired the character of wa Furthermore, there is not an iota ted under Section 4 and 5 of the Act notification dated 09.01.1971 (Ex.D rty, thus, both the learned Courts belo plaintiff. ssed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court sentatives and others Vs. Chandri aur Vs. Prithvi Pal Singh and othe (dead) through LRs Vs. Gurchar 23) SCC Online SC 875, questions d appeal before the Punjab and Harya ribed by provisions of Section 41 of t and circumstances, this Court does n by learned counsel for the appella even by dant has hich was slim law cation, it ar 1986- f Board, perty has There is wakf n iota of e Act of (Ex.D1) ts below Court in ndrika others charan stions of Haryana 41 of the does not ppellant- PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.04.24 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-329-1996 (O& plaintiff. Conseq is upheld and the 14. Misc April 23, 2026 Pankaj* 6 (O&M) -10- onsequently, the concurrent finding r nd the instant regular second appeal is Miscellaneous application(s), if any, (AM Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable ding rendered by both the Courts belo peal is dismissed. if any, also stand disposed of. AMARINDER SINGH GREWA JUDGE ned : Yes/No : Yes/No ts below EWAL) PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.04.24 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh