GH QADIR MIR Vs. SPECIAL OFFICER, AUQAF, J&K
LAWS(J&K)-1986-1-5
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on January 08,1986

Gh Qadir Mir Appellant
VERSUS
Special Officer, Auqaf, JAndK Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THE petitionerâ„¢s case is that in village Murran Terwi Pulwama, there is a Jamia Masjid and Ziarat of Hazrat Mir Syed and the people of the said Village had formed the Auqaf Committee for the better management of the masque and the shrine. The petitioner was its Chairman local People of the village had adopted a constitution in the year 1930 which provides the method and manner of appointment/election of the Managing Committee and their functions as regards the management of the mosque and the shrine. In the year 19&1 by an amendment 45 members were required to be nominated by the president to hold the office of the said Committee, it is averred the on 14 -8 -1983 elections were held to the Managing Committee and the petitioner was elected as its President, Thereafter some inhabitants are said to have to moved the application before respondent No, 1 leveling certain charges of misconduct against the petitioner. The prayer was made to respondent No, 1 to appoint some Committee in place of the petitioners Committee to manage the affairs of the shrine and the mosque Respondent No. 1 is said to have appointed a Committee headed by respondent No. 4, who happens to be a local M. L. A. Jurisdiction of respondent Mo. 1 is challenged and it is stated that his functions are to make survey about the waqaf property and thereafter submit a report to the prescribed authority. Respondent No. 1 has however over -stepped his jurisdiction by over -setting the only constituted committee and has in its place appointed a Committee consisting of some people headed by respdt. No. 4, a local M. L A. The respondent No, 1 is also said to have initiated enquiry in respect of the application submitted by some persons contained in Annexure - B to the writ petition. In that application allegations of acts of omission and commission as President of Auqaf Committee against the petitioner are levelled, Respondents 1,3 and 4 are said to have filed an application before respondent No 2 who is said to have referred the matter to the Assistant commissioner for enquiry. The petitioner challenges the jurisdiction of respondent No.1 to enquire into this application and also challenges jurisdiction of respondent No I to interfere with the management the shine and the mosque by the petitioners and its Committee. The arc based on the grounds that the mosque and the shrine have been declared as Waqaf property, consequently respondent No. 1 no authority to deal with the said property. In the alternative it purged that even if mosque and shrine are held to be Waqaf property respondent No, l"s jurisdiction to constitute a new Committee or remove Managing Committee which was duly constituted is without jurisdiction. It is also submitted that the Deputy Commissioner has no power interfere with the property of the mosque and the shrine nor can enquiry be held by him.
(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1 alone has filed his reply which is not supported by any affidavit but appears to have been signed by his counsel. Thereafter he has absented himself and consequently exparte proceeding were taken against him. The exparte proceedings were later on set aside on the condition of payment of costs by him, which were never paid and on 1 -10 -1985 the court directed that for non -payment of costs exparte proceedings taken against respondents 1 and 2 shall continue to be operative. Thereafter this writ petition came up for hearing.
(3.) MR . Bashir Ahmed Bashir, the Chief Govt. Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the dispute is between two bodies about the management or the shrine and the mosque as such respondents 1 and 2 are not interested in contesting the petition, He submitted that it is for the counsel for respondents 3 and 4 to contest the writ petition. Counsel for respdt. 3 and 4 did not appear nor was any counter/reply filed on their part. Reply of respondent No. 1 is on the record but respdt. No. 1 has not taken this court into confidence as to Whether the shrine and the mosque in question were ever declared Waqaf property or not. His reply has been that under the provisions of JK Wakafs Act, 1978 hereinafter called Act of 1978, various powers are vested in various authorities and Tehsil Committee has the authority to appoint a Sub -committee,;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.