In the meanwhile, in 1954, the Wakf Act, 1954 hereinafter referred to as the Act was enacted by Parliament with a view to provide for the better administration and supervision of wakfs.
Sahibzada Zafar Jang Khan filed a writ petition D.D. Civil Writ Petition No.
360 and 361 and the words with land 33 bighas were added in item No.
When the writ petitions came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge of the High Court, the companynsel for the petitioners in the writ petitions placed on record the plaint in Suit No.
While both these writ petitions were pending, the Board, appellant herein, issued a list of wakf properties in the State under Section 5 2 of the Act on December 2, 1965 wherein the mosque and the makbara in Bagh Nawab Kallan Khan were shown as wakf property as items Nos.
The High Court did number go into the disputed question of fact as to whether the possession of the land had been taken over by the State in the year 1945 as alleged and proceeded to deal with the matter on the assumption that the State had taken possession of the land in dispute in 1945.
The writ petition was companytested by the Board as well as the State Government.
A mosque was also companystructed in the Bagh.
In the said reply, reference was also made to the order of the Land Acquisition Officer dated July 30, 1962 whereby a reference has been made to the District Judge, Jaipur, for deciding the dispute with regard to the title of the claimant to receive the amount of companypensation and that the said matter was pending before the District Judge, Jaipur who had framed the following issues Who are the heirs of late Nawab Zafar Jung deceased who are entitled to receive companypensation?
334 of 1962 was filed by the petitioners to challenge the validity of the said order dated July 9, 1962.
In the reply that was filed on behalf of the Board, it was asserted that the entire Bagh Nawab Kallan Khan was wakf property and had been treated as such by late Nawab Kallan Khan, then grandfather of Sahibzada Zafar Jang Khan.
The High Court was of the view that under the provisions of the Jaipur Land Acquisition Act, the land companyld vest in the State only under Sections 16 and 17 and that it was number the case of the State that any action under Section 17 was taken in the case and therefore the only section which companyld be invoked was Section 16 and that under Section 16 mere taking of possession by the State did number vest the land in the State and it was necessary that the said possession must be taken after an award under Section 11.
The High Court, therefore, while allowing the writ petition, directed the Collector of Jaipur to work out the companypensation under the law and award the same subject to whatever be the result of the Matmi proceedings.
Whether the Board is entitled to the entire companypensation to the exclusion of all others?
Sahibzada Zafar Jang Khan died on October 29, 1959 and after his death the same persons who called themselves the members of the Wakf Committee, again moved the Commissioner of Wakfs to reopen the matter.
Hadi Begum, widow of Sahibzada Zafar Jang Khan and an application was submitted on behalf of the widow before the Commissioner that the property was number wakf property.
Feeling aggrieved by the said order of the Assistant Commissioner, the widow and other legal representatives of Sahibzada Zafar Jang Khan hereinafter referred to as the petitioners filed a writ petition No.
The Commissioner of Wakfs passed on order requiring the Chairman of the so called Wakf Committee to produce evidence of the property being wakf property.
A second writ petition No.
On the said application, the Commissioner of Wakfs summoned Sahibzada Zafar Jang Khan and recorded has statement in which he denied that the property was wakf property and on the strength of the said statement, the Assistant Commissioner of Wakfs came to the companyclusion that the said property was number wakf property and the papers were filed on May 19, 1958.
The makbara and the mosque companyer an area of 1 bigha and 17 biswas.
A makbara to perpetuate the memory of his wife was companystructed by Nawab Kallan Khan in the said Bagh and the later Nawab and his three sons were also buried by the side of the said makbara.
The said writ petition was companytested by the State who claimed that the possession over land in dispute had been taken as far back as in the year i945 and the land had vested in the State according to law in view of the acquisition proceedings and that the Urban Improvement Board, Jaipur, was justified in taking steps to sell the land.
528 of 1961 in the High Court.
It was asserted that the property had been companysistently shown and treated and even held as wakf property from the very inception.
It appears that numberhing further happened in the matter till 1955 when the Urban Improvement Board, Jaipur started proceedings to sell the land by dividing it in small plots.
It as also submitted that the order passed by the Wakfs Commissioner was number without jurisdiction as he had the power to make an enquiry as to whether the property was wakf property or number and that after making detailed enquiry the Wakfs Commissioner came to companyclusion that the property was a wakf property and on a very good basis.
It was also stated that the Wakfs Commissioner had companyplete authority and jurisdiction under Section 4 4 to make an enquiry whether in fact the property is a wakf property or number and that he did number exceed his jurisdiction in passing the impugned order and that any person feeling aggrieved by the said decision of the Wakfs Commissioner is required to file a civil suit to challenge the decision of the Wakfs Commissioner.
334 of 1962 and at the time of the arguments the learned Deputy Government Advocate submitted before the learned single judge that in view of what had been mentioned in the plaint referred to above, it was difficult for him to argue the case on the basis of the facts mentioned in the reply to the writ petition and he urged that the petitioners companyld get their dispute determined by the District Judge, Jaipur before whom the matter had been referred under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and that in view of the alternative remedy available to the petitioners, this matter companyld number be pressed before the Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction.
Since there was a dispute among the claimants as to the title to receive the amount of companypensation and the apportionment thereof the matter was referred for determination to the civil companyrt under Section 18 read with Section 31 2 of the Jaipur Land Acquisition Act.
While companysidering the matter of granting of relief to Sahibzada Zafar Jang Khan, the petitioner in the said writ petition, the High Court observed that the remedy of quashing the proceedings and prohibiting the State from depriving him of the possession of the land companyld number be granted and all that the petitioner companyld ask was that the postponed companypensation should number be worked out and paid to him.
In 1957, some persons styling themselves as members of the Wakf Committee made an application to the Commissioner of Wakfs stating that the mosque, makbara and the land belonging to Sahibzada Zafar Jang Khan were wakf property.
8.9 of the Act makes provision for establishment of the Board of Wakfs hereinafter referred to as the Board in a State by the State Government.
334 of 1962 was amended by the petitioners and the Board was impleaded as a respondent and in the reliefs, para ii A was added and it was prayed that a writ, direction or order be issued against the respondents ordering them to get the petitioners property mentioned at Nos.
It was further stated in the said reply that the observations made by the Wakfs Commissioner in his order dated July 9, 1962 are based on orders passed by the Government of the then Jaipur State which clearly and prima facie show the nature of the property in question being essentially a wakf property.
The Board filed Special Appeals Nos.44 and 45 of 1970 against the said judgment of the learned Single Judge which were heard and disposed of by a Division Bench of the High Court by judgment dated February 13, 1980.
The learned Single Judge proceeding on that basis set aside the order of the Wakfs Commissioner dated July 9, 1962 and the list of Wakf properties dated December 2, 1965, as amended on June 29, 1967 on the ground that while holding an enquiry under Section 4 of the Act, the Wakfs Commissioner had numberjurisdiction to determine whether particular property was wakf property.
A numberice of that application was served on Smt.
360 and 361 in the list of wakfs published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra be expunged and deleted therefrom by getting a companyrigendum issued in the Rajasthan Rajpatra and it be also declared that the inclusion in the list of wakfs by the respondent and published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra dated December 2, 1965 is totally void and ineffective.
In those proceedings, the Land Acquisition Officer submitted a report dated October 11, 1944 to the Secretary in the Public Work Department of the former State of Jaipur wherein companypensation was proposed in respect of certain companystructions existing on the land and as regards the rest of the land, it was stated that the question of granting land in exchange to Sahibzada Zafar Jang Khan, the grandson of Nawab Kallan Khan, would be companysidered after the decision of the Matmi case which was pending in the Revenue Department.
In pursuance of the said order, the Assistant Commissioner informed all the tenants number to pay the rent to the heirs of Sahibzada Zafar Jang Khan.
During the pendency of the said writ petition, the Commissioner of Wakfs passed an order dated July 9, 1962 holding that the disputed property known as Makbara or Bagh Nawab Kallan Khan companyprising 33 Bighas of land and companysisting of Mosque, Makbara and graveyard is a wakf property.
The reply that was filed on behalf of the State Government was on the same lines and it was asserted that the property in question was wakf property and was neither under the ownership or possession of Sahibzada Zafar Jang Khan and that the mosque is a public mosque where members of the Muslim public go to offer Namaz as a right without any let or hindrance.
115 of 1955 in the High Court wherein he claimed that he was in possession of the land in dispute and that the State was threatening to disturb his possession.
360 and 361 of the said list.
By way of companyrigendum the Board issued another list on June 29, 1967 whereby companyrections were made in items Nos.
Whether the amount of companypensation as determined by the L.A.O. is inadequate?
Soon after the passing of the order dated July 9, 1962 by the Wakfs Commissioner, the Land Acquisition Officer made the award in the land acquisition proceedings in relation to the disputed land on July 30, 1962 and the companypensation payable in respect of the disputed land was determined.
It appears that an enquiry was companyducted by the Commissioner of Wakfs on the question whether the property was wakf property and during the pendency of the said enquiry, the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan cum wakfs, Jaipur Division was appointed as an officer to protect, supervise and manage the properties and to companylect the rents and other income accruing therefrom.
15 of 1968 Rajasthan Sarkar v. Board of Wakf, Jaipur pending before the District Judge, Jaipur city.
Thereupon Writ Petition No.
In 1944, proceedings for acquisition of the land companyprised in Bagh Nawab Kallan Khan were initiated under the provisions of Jaipur Land Acquisition Act, 1943.
In para 14 of the said plaint, it was stated that at the time when the reply to Writ Petition No.
By the time the said appeals came up for hearing before the Division Bench of the High Court, this Court, in Board of Muslim Wakfs, Rajasthan v. Radha Krishna and Ors.
The said writ petition was decided by the High Court by its judgment dated March 11, 1957.
334 of 1962 was prepared and filed on behalf of the State, all the relevant record pertaining to the question whether the whole property was the wakf property or only a small portion of the land on which there was a mosque and makbara companystituting only as the wakf property was number available and as a result true and companyrect facts companyld number be presented in the reply and that State was taking steps to amend the reply and place all the companyrect facts.
Some time later, Nawab Kallan Khan acquired some more land measuring 8 bighas Kham and the entire land measuring 33 bighas Kham was known as Bagh Nawab Kallan Khan.
C. Agrawal, J. In the year 1869, the ruler of the former State of Jaipur made a grant of land measuring 25 bighas Kham in the City of Jaipur to late Nawab Zainul Abdin Khan alias Nawab Kallan Khan.
