PUNJAB WAKF BOARD versus GRAM PANCHAYAT @ GRAM SABHA

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 127 · Decided: 01-12-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. JAGANNADHA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
PUNJAB WAKF BOARD 
A 
v. 
GRAM PAN CHAY AT@ GRAM SABHA 
DECEMBER I, 1999 
[M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND A.P. MISRA, JJ.] 
B 
Punjab Village Common Land (Regulations) Act, 1961-Section 2(g) 
& Section 13 'shamilat deh '-Village property used for community purposes-
Revenue records show Gram Panchayat as owner-Whether land in question C 
is 'Shami/at deh '-Held, yes-Further Held, a suit for declaration in respect 
of the property is barred. 
Waif Act 1954-Sections 4,5(2),6-Notification by Waif Board declaring 
suit property to the Waif Property-Respondent claiming the land as shami/at 
deh and used by community-Assistant Collector and Collector rejecting D 
mutation in favour of WakfBoard-Whether the decision by Assistant Collector 
is barred under the Act-Held, no. 
Wakf Act 1954-Section 6 Explanation, Section 13-Suit by persons 
interested in the wakf-To be filed within one year-Whether party can 
approach authorities under the Act without filing a suit as a person E 
interested-Held, Yes-Since no notice was issued to the party, it can approach 
the Assistant Collector and Collector-A suit by wakf board challenging the 
decisions of the authorities is barred. 
Appellant issued a notification under Section 5(2) of the Wakf Act, 1954 
treating the suit property as a Muslim grave-yard, in pursuance of which the F 
property was mutated in the name of the Appellant The Respondent then filed 
a claim before the Assistant Collector that the property was community 
property and a 'shamilat deb' which stood vested in the Gram Panchayat and 
could not have been mutated in the name of the Appellant. The Appellant 
contended that the property was under their ownership and was being used as 
a graveyard for Mohammedans exclusively. The Assistant Collector allowed G 
• the claim of the respondent, rejected the mutation and held that the 
Respondents have been recorded as the owner in the revenue records and the 
property in question is also being used for common purposes by them. 
The appeal filed by the Appellant was dismissed by the Collector. The 
127 
H 
128 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A Appellant filed a Civil Suit for a declaration that they were the owners in 
possession of the property as per the Jamabandi with all rights appurtenant 
thereto. The Appellant contended that the notification under Section S (2) of 
the Act of 1954, was conclusive and the orders of the Assistant Collector and 
Collector were illegal and without jurisdiction as the notification was not 
B challenged within one year as provided under first proviso to Section 6(1) of 
the Act of 1954. The Respondent contended that the property was not a 
graveyard exclusively for Muslims as it was used by the village community 
and that the suit itself was barred under Section 13 of the Punjab Village '· 
Common Land (Regulations) Act, 1961. 
C 
The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit and held that the suit property 
was not in the ownership of the Appellant and that the suit was barred under 
Section 13 of the Act of 1961. The Appeals filed by the Appellant before the 
District Court and the High Court were dismissed. 
In appeal to this Court, the Appellant contended that the notification 
D issued under Section 5(2) of the Act of 1954 is conclusive on the question 
whether the property is of the wakf or not, that the decision of the Assistant . 
Collector and the Collector is void inasmuch as no suit has been filed within 
one year for challenging the notification and therefore the notification will , 
remain unaffected precluding the Assistant Collector as well as the Collector 
from rendering any decision contrary to what was declared in Sayyed Ali's 
E case, that under Section 2(g) of the Panchayat Act, 1962 since the revenue 
record does not show use by the Panchayat and the land stood excluded from 
the definition of"Shamilat Deb", and that the explanation added below Sec. 
6(1) of the Act of 1954 by the Central Act 69of1984, is applicable to those 
who are interested in the Wakf Property and hence the Respondent ought to 
F have filed a suit within one year, challenging the notification. 
The Respondent contended that Sayyed Ali's case was distinguishable 
from the presentcase, that notwithstanding the Notification under Section 
5(2) it was open to the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide that 
the property in question was not wakf property, that once the authorities 
G decided in favour of the Gram Panchayat Section 13 of the 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.