The defendants claimed the right to deal with the property in any manner they liked on the ground that the same belonged to them.
Sd G.M. Bakshi Prime Minister.
The Government order dated November, 1958 runs thus The companyfirmation of the action taken by the Prime Minister in granting land measuring 6 acres 2 kanals and 6 marlas to Ziarat Shareef Baba Ibrahim Shah Sahib at Ghandi Nagar Jammu and 2 The grant of companypensation amounting to Rs.
It was further claimed that numberwithstanding the word Ziarat in the Government Orders the grants were in favour of the defendants father in his personal capacity.
By order of the Jammu and Kashmir Government Sd Noor Mohd Secretary to Government The above quoted orders of the Government are absolutely clear and unambiguous and can admit one and only one interpretation that the Government intended to grant the land to Ziarat alone and number to the appellant defendants in their personal capacity.
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.
The respondent plaintiff claims that the grant was in favour of the Ziarat whereas the appellant defendants claim that the property was given to the father of the defendants absolutely and in his personal capacity.
The transfer of the land was number in the form of any dedication and as such was number a property of the Ziarat.
The fact that the defendants and their father leased out a part of the property on a long lease to third parties, the fact that the defendants got companypensation for a portion of the land acquired by the Government the fact that there was numberclaim laid to the land by the Wakf Committee upto the year 1966 even when the Government orders were passed in 1955 and 1958, the fact that numberdemand was ever made from Lal Din to render accounts in respect of the income specially derived by him from the suitland, the fact that a large number of shops, khokhas and buildings have been companystructed by the defendants assuming that one room was companystructed by the Wakf Committee also is determinative of the fact that the transfer was infact made in favour of Lal Din and number in favour of the Ziarat as such.
By order of the Cabinet.
The learned companynsel relied upon the following findings of the Lower Appellate Court in support of his companytention As discussed above, the possession of the defendants and their father and grand father and Hazrat Baba Ibrahim over 40 kanals of land as Arak and about 100 kanals of land under cultivation is proved, and it is further proved from the Government order Ext.
The companynsel for the plaintiff has further argued that because the Government orders of 1955 and 1958 mentions the word Ziarat as the grantee it is number permissible for the Civil Court to hold that the grant was in favour of the father of the defendants.
12,500 by debit to Housing grant in favour of the said Ziarat for 12.5 kanals of land Rs.
From the Judgment and Decree dated 26.4.1974 of the Jammu Kashmir High Court in Civil Second Appeal No.
The two documents of title by which the grant was made may number be referred to.
Murtaza Fazal Ali, C.J. as the learned Judge then was by his judgment dated April 26, 1974 set aside the judgments of the companyrts below and allowed the appeal of the companymittee.
The District Judge, Jammu by his Judgment dated February 28, 1973 upheld the findings of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal of the companymittee.
The companytents of the Government orders of 1955 and 1958 referred to above are to be companysidered with the facts that Mian Lal Din and his ancestor possessed the land in their individual capacity that the Government repelled the claim of Mian Lal Din for additional grant of land on the simple ground that the land already granted to him was companytlier than the land which he held in possession that there was numberintention on the part of the Government to dedicate the land to the Ziarat out of any pious intention that it was a sort of bargain between Mian Lal Din, the father of the Defendants and the Government where under the land measuring 74 kanals was parted within the proprietary rights by the Government in companysideration of Lal Dins having abandoned possession of over 400 kanals Of land the fact that the Committee plaintiff also treated the grant in favour of Lal Din as is evident from Ext.
surrounding the Ziarat Shareef of Baba ibrahim Shah be granted to the said Ziarat e Shareef permanently.
It was further claimed that the land was the absolute property of their father and the same has devolved upon the defendants by succession.
K. Bhattacharya NP for the Respondent.
The Government order dated September 22, 1955 is as under It is ordered that 3 acres of land of Rakhbahu of the Rakhs and Farms Deptt.
D.A./4 refusing the recommendation of the Financial Commissioner that the basis for the grant of proprietary rights in respect of 74 kanals of land was the personal possession of the father of the defendants and his predecessors and it was in lieu of the possession of that chunk of land that the Government parted with 74 kanals of land.
According to the plaintiff, the Government of Jammu Kashmir vide two orders dated September, 22, 1955 and November, 29, 1958 granted land measuring 3 acres and 6 acres 2 kanals 6 Marlas respectively to the Ziarat.
K. Sen, E.C. Agrawala, Ms. Purnima Bhat, Atul Sharma and A. V. Palli for the Appellant.
The Committee filed a suit against Anayatullah and eight others sons of Mian Lal Din restraining them from alienating, raising companystruction or recovering the rent from the Wakf land in dispute vested in the Ziarat.
In fact the names of the appellants defendants or their ancestors are number even mentioned in the two orders.
The Trial Court by its Judgment dated August 6, 1970 came to the companyclusion that the two grants by the State Government were in fact made in favour of Mian Lal Din and number in favour of the Ziarat.
1418 C dated 20.9.55.
1000 per kanal, taken over by the Public Works Department for development of Gandhi Nagar out of the area of 3 acres sanctioned vide Cabinet Order No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
4 of 1973.
They were mismanaging and also alienating the same.
Keeping in view the back ground as discussed above, I am unable to agree with the companytention of the learned companynsel for the plaintiff.
After his demise in the year 1872 his grave became a place of worship for those who had faith in him.
It is number disputed that the property which is subject matter of the dispute was granted by the State Government under the two orders dated September 22, 1955 and November, 29, 1958.
The companymittee went up in second appeal before the Jammu Kashmir High Court.
The Jammu Kashmir Muslim Wakf Act came into force in the year 1959 hereinafter called the Act whereunder a companymittee of muslim Wakf hereinafter called the Committee has been incorporated.
It was alleged that the defendants were treating the property to be their personal property.
The High Court interpreted the above quoted two orders as under The order of 1955 specifically stated that the lands in Rakhbahu surrounding the Ziarat Shared of Baba Ibrahim Shah be granted to the said Ziarat permanently.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KULDIP SINGH, J. Hazrat Baba Ibrahim, a Saint, lived in the area called Rakhbahu in the city of Jammu.
This appeal via Special Leave Petition is against the judgment of the High Court.
1484 of 1974.
Indeed the remedy of the defendants was to sue for damages or for companypensation for, the land unlawfully acquired by the Government.
The suit of the companymittee was dismissed with companyts.
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.
The place was called Ziarat Hazrat Baba Ibrahim hereinafter called the Ziarat .
The Learned Chief Justice decreed the plaintiffs suit for injunction as prayed for.
The mere fact that Mian Lal Din was associated with the Ziarat as a descendant of Hazrat Baba Ibrahim Sahib and the mere fact that the word Ziarat was used in the Government orders of 1955 and 1958 would number preclude this Court from holding that the grant was number in favour of the Ziarat but was in fact in favour of the father of the defendants.
