Land Classified As Takia, Graveyard, Mosque Must Be Protected Regardless Of Non-Use: P&H HC Upholds Waqf Tribunal Decision
The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the decision of the Waqf Tribunal, reiterating that land designated as Takia (land meant for communal use by Muslims), graveyard, or mosque in revenue records must be protected, even if it has not been in active use by the Muslim community for an extended period.
The Court ruled that such entries in the revenue records are conclusive and cannot be disputed, even if the land has not been utilized for its intended purpose for a long time.
The case stemmed from a dispute between the Punjab Wakf Board and the Gram Panchayat over a piece of land that the Wakf Board claimed was donated by Maharaja Kapurthala and had been classified as Takia, graveyard, and mosque in the revenue records. The Wakf Board sought a declaration of ownership and a permanent injunction, asserting that the land was Waqf property. The Waqf Tribunal ruled in favor of the Wakf Board, granting it ownership and preventing the Panchayat from interfering with its possession.
A Division Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma said, "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 (sic),”
Advocate Satinder Khanna appeared for the petitioner and Advocate GN Malik appeared for the respondents.
The Gram Panchayat contested this ruling, arguing that the land was recorded as Shamilat Deh (village common land) in the revenue records and, therefore, belonged to the Panchayat. The Panchayat contended that under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1953, the matter should fall under the jurisdiction of the authorities responsible for regulating village common land, not the Waqf Tribunal. The Panchayat also claimed that the 1971 notification declaring the land as Waqf property was invalid because the Panchayat had not been notified, thus violating the principles of natural justice.
However, the High Court upheld the Waqf Tribunal's decision. The Court emphasized that entries in the revenue records designating the land as Takia, graveyard, and mosque are final and conclusive. The Court said, "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 Bench pointed out that the Wakf Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction over matters concerning Waqf property under the Wakf Act, and dismissed the Panchayat's claim that the case should have been handled under the Punjab Village Common Lands Act, 1953.
The Court further affirmed the validity of the 1971 notification that declared the land as Waqf property. It ruled, “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 Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (sic),”
As a result, the Court dismissed the Gram Panchayat’s petition, upholding the Waqf Tribunal’s decision as lawful and valid.
Cause Title: Gram Panchayat Of Village Budho Pundher v. Punjab Waqf Board & Ors., [2024:PHHC:155220-DB]
