ANAYATULLAH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF MUSLIM WAKF OF JAMMU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Hazrat Baba Ibrahim, a Saint, lived in the area called Rakhbahu in the city of Jammu. After his demise in the year 1872 his grave became a place of worship for those who had faith in him. The place was called Ziarat Hazrat Baba Ibrahim (hereinafter called "the Ziarat"). The Ziarat was managed by Sain Ladha, a nephew of Baba Hazrat Ibrahim. After Sain Ladhas death his son Mian Lal Din succeeded him. At present the Ziarat is being managed by the sons of Mian Lal Din who died in the year 1963.

(2.) The Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Wakf Act came into force in the year 1959 (hereinafter called "the Act") whereunder a committee of Muslim Wakf (hereinafter called "the Committee) has been incorporated.

(3.) The Committee filed a suit against Anayat-Ullah and eight others (sons of Mian Lal Din) restraining them from alienating, raising construction or recovering the rent from the Wakf land in dispute vested in the Ziarat. According to the plaintiff, the Government of Jammu and Kashmir vide two orders dated September 22, 1955 and November 29, 1958 granted land measuring 3 acres and 6 acres 2 kanals 6 Marias respectively to the Ziarat. It was alleged that the defendants were treating the property to be their personal property. They were mismanaging and also alienating the same. The defendants in their written statement resisted the suit on a number of grounds and stated that the land in dispute was transferred by the Government in favour of their father in lieu of his possessory right over about 400/500 Kanals of land which was taken over by the Government. It was further claimed that the land was the absolute property of their father and the same has devolved upon the defendants by succession. It was further claimed that notwithstanding the word "Ziarat" in the Government Orders the grants were in favour of the defendants father in his personal capacity. The transfer of the land was not in the form of any dedication and as such was not a property of the Ziarat. The defendants claimed the right to deal with the property in any manner they liked on the ground that the same belonged to them."