Any land declared as Masjid, graveyard in revenue records must be protected as waqf even if unused by Muslims for long: Punjab & Haryana HC

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that any entry in the revenue records declaring the land as “Takia (land meant for the common use of Muslims), graveyard and Masjid” must be protected, even if the Muslim community has not used it for a long time.

A division bench comprising Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma said, “Any entry in the revenue records declaring the land as Takia, graveyard and Masjid, enjoys conclusively, 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,” Live Law reported.

The statement was issued while rejecting a plea filed by Gram Panchayat Budho Pundher, challenging the decision of a Waqf Tribunal to declare the land as Waqf property and to restrain the Panchayat from disturbing its possession.

The Waqf Board filed a suit seeking a declaration of ownership and a permanent injunction, claiming that the land in question was classified in revenue records as Takia, graveyard, and mosque.

The Waqf Tribunal allowed the Waqf Board’s suit for a declaration of rights in its favour and permanent injunction.

Consequently, the petitioner Gram Panchayat is restrained from interfering in “the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the property, in dispute illegally and forcibly.”

The Gram Panchayat of Village Budho Pundher challenged the order before the High Court.

Advocate G.N. Malik, represented the Punjab Waqf Board, while Satinder Khanna appeared for the petitioner Gram Panchayat of village Budho Pundher.

The Court noted that admittedly the disputed land was donated by Maharaja Kapurthala and declared as “Takia, graveyard and the Masjid” to Nikke Sha, Slamat Sha sons of Sube Shah on 14 Katak in 1922.

The Sha brothers migrated to Pakistan after partition and 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 opposite Misl Haqiat was prepared whereby in the ownership column the State was declared to be the owner, whereas, in the relevant classification column the property was described as Masjid, graveyard, and Takia of the Gram Panchayat.

The bench opined that “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,” Live Law reports.

Thus, “it cannot be deemed to be the subject matter of any competent alienation(s) being made by any authority to any person.”

The Waqf Tribunal declared the land Waqf property, considering the revenue entry, the disputed property as “Gair Mumkin Masjid, Takia, and graveyard.”

The Court also rejected Gram Panchayat’s argument that the Waqf Tribunal was not entitled to adjudicate the declaration suit and pass the impugned order.

Speaking for the bench Justice Sureshwar Thakur said that, the entry in the classification column of the relevant revenue entry, enjoys precedence over the entry in the revenue records describing the disputed lands as Shamlat Deh (common land used for village benefit).

Therefore, any entry in the revenue records declaring the land as Takia, graveyard, and Masjid is indisputable and required to be ensured to be protected, despite evidence of purported prolonged non-user thereof by the Muslim community.

Considering the above, the Court held that the decision of the Waqf Tribunal to declare the land as Waqf property and pass the injunction order restraining the Gram Panchayat is valid and within the purview of the law.