Holding

The Supreme Court held that the land is "Shamilat Deh" used for community purposes, making the suit barred under Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulations) Act, 1961, and that the Wakf Act’s one‑year limitation does not restrict a third‑party dispute, so the Wakf Board's suit fails.

Summary

The Punjab Wakf Board claimed ownership of a parcel of land that it had declared a Muslim graveyard by a 1970 notification under the Wakf Act, 1954, and sought a declaration of title. The Gram Panchayat contested the claim, asserting that the land was recorded as community property and used for common purposes, making it "Shamilat Deh" under the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulations) Act, 1961. The Assistant Collector and Collector rejected the Wakf Board's mutation request, and the Board filed a suit which was dismissed by lower courts on the ground that the suit was barred by Section 13 of the Punjab Act. The Supreme Court examined whether the one‑year limitation in the Wakf Act applied to a third‑party dispute and whether the land fell within the definition of "Shamilat Deh". It held that the land was indeed community land, that Section 13 barred the suit, and that the Wakf Act’s limitation does not apply to disputes with strangers, thereby dismissing the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the land qualifies as "Shamilat Deh" under Section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulations) Act, 1961
Whether Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulations) Act, 1961 bars the Wakf Board's suit
Whether the one‑year limitation in the first proviso to Section 6 of the Wakf Act, 1954 applies when the dispute is with a third party (the Gram Panchayat)
Whether the Assistant Collector and Collector were authorized to reject the mutation and their orders are valid
Whether the Wakf Board can rely on the 1970 notification under Section 5(2) of the Wakf Act as conclusive

Legislation cited

Wakf Act, 1954s. 4, s. 5(2), s. 6
Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984s. Explanation

Subjects

WakfShamilat DehPunjab Village Common Land ActSection 13Wakf Act 1954mutationland ownershipcivil suit limitationAssistant CollectorGram Panchayat

Judgment

PUNJAB WAKF BOARD A
v.
GRAM PAN CHAY AT@ GRAM SABHA

DECEMBER I, 1999

[M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND A.P. MISRA, JJ.] B

Punjab Village Common Land (Regulations) Act, 1961-Section 2(g)
& Section 13 'shamilat deh '-Village property usedfor community purposes-
Revenue records show Gram Panchayat as owner-Whether land in question C
is 'Shami/at deh '-Held, yes-Further Held, a suit for declaration in respect
of the property is barred.

WaifAct 1954-Sections 4,5(2),6-Notification by Waif Board declaring
suit property to the Waif Property-Respondent claiming the land as shami/at
deh and used by community-Assistant Collector and Collector rejecting D
mutation in favour of WakfBoard-Whether the decision by Assistant Collector
is barred under the Act-Held, no.
Wakf Act 1954-Section 6 Explanation, Section 13-Suit by persons
interested in the wakf-To be filed within one year-Whether party can
approach authorities under the Act without filing a suit as a person E
interested-Held, Yes-Since no notice was issued to the party, it can approach
the Assistant Collector and Collector-A suit by wakf board challenging the
decisions of the authorities is barred.

Appellant issued a notification under Section 5(2) of the Wakf Act, 1954
treating the suit property as a Muslim grave-yard, in pursuance of which the F
property was mutated in the name of the Appellant The Respondent then filed
a claim before the Assistant Collector that the property was community
property and a 'shamilat deb' which stood vested in the Gram Panchayat and
could not have been mutated in the name of the Appellant. The Appellant
contended that the property was under their ownership and was being used as
a graveyard for Mohammedans exclusively. The Assistant Collector allowed G
• the claim of the respondent, rejected the mutation and held that the
Respondents have been recorded as the owner in the revenue records and the
property in question is also being used for common purposes by them.
The appeal filed by the Appellant was dismissed by the Collector. The
H
.. 127
128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A Appellant filed a Civil Suit for a declaration that they were the owners in
)
possession of the property as per the Jamabandi with all rights appurtenant
thereto. The Appellant contended that the notification under Section S (2) of
the Act of 1954, was conclusive and the orders of the Assistant Collector and
Collector were illegal and without jurisdiction as the notification was not
B challenged within one year as provided under first proviso to Section 6(1) of
the Act of 1954. The Respondent contended that the property was not a
graveyard exclusively for Muslims as it was used by the village community
and that the suit itself was barred under Section 13 of the Punjab Village '·
Common Land (Regulations) Act, 1961.

C The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit and held that the suit property
was not in the ownership of the Appellant and that the suit was barred under
Section 13 of the Act of 1961. The Appeals filed by the Appellant before the
District Court and the High Court were dismissed.

In appeal to this Court, the Appellant contended that the notification
D issued under Section 5(2) of the Act of 1954 is conclusive on the question
whether the property is of the wakf or not, that the decision of the Assistant .
Collector and the Collector is void inasmuch as no suit has been filed within
one year for challenging the notification and therefore the notification will ,
remain unaffected precluding the Assistant Collector as well as the Collector
from rendering any decision contrary to what was declared in Sayyed Ali's
E case, that under Section 2(g) of the Panchayat Act, 1962 since the revenue
record does not show use by the Panchayat and the land stood excluded from
the definition of"Shamilat Deb", and that the explanation added below Sec.
6(1) of the Act of 1954 by the Central Act 69of1984, is applicable to those
who are interested in the Wakf Property and hence the Respondent ought to
F have filed a suit within one year, challenging the notification.

The Respondent contended that Sayyed Ali's case was distinguishable
from the presentcase, that notwithstanding the Notification under Section
5(2) it was open to the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide that
the property in question was not wakf property, that once the authorities
G decided in favour of the Gram Panchayat Section 13 of the Act was a bar to
the maintainability of the present suit by the WakfBoard, and that the land
was being used for community purposes as recorded in the revenue records
and was therefore not excluded from "Shamilat Deb" as defined in Section
2(g) of the ·Punjab Act of 1961.

H
1 Dismissing the Appeal, the Court
·.l
PUNJAB WAKF BOARD v. GRAM PANCHAYAT 129
HELD: 1. The findings of the Assistant Collector that the revenue A
records show that the Gram Panchayat is the oWller and also that the property
in question is being used for common purposes of the Gram Panchayat showed
the land was being used by village community. It is obvious from the definition
'
l
of Shamilat Deb in Section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Land
(Regulations) Act, 1961 that the land in question did not fall within the
exclusionary part of the definition. Therefore, the land was "Shamilat Deb"
B
and was being used as such as per the revenue records. Thus, Section 13 of
Act would apply and preclude a suit by the Wakf Board. (139-B-D)

2. The first proviso to clause (1) of Section 6 would not come in the way
(••
of the Assistant Collector and the Collector to decide the dispute raised by a c
third party like the Panchayat whether the property is a modem Wakf or not.
In the present case the dispute not being one between the Wakf and Mutawalli
or the persons claiming under him, but with a stranger, the decision in Sayyed
Ali's case cannot be applied. The said decision is clearly distinguishable and
is not applicable to the facts of this case. (136-G-H; 137-B)
D
Sayyed Ali v. Wakf Board Hyderabad, (1998) 2 SCC 642, distinguished.

Board of Muslim Wakf. Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan and Ors., (1979) 2
sec 468, followed.
'"" E
Sayed Mohd. Sali Labbai (DJ by LRs. and Ors. v. Mohd. Hanif (DJ by
lrs. and Ors., cited.

3. The Government of India has not issued any date for commencement
of the explanation in Section 6 of the Wakf Act. Even if it is assumed that the
- explanation can be invoked, there is on material before the Court to show F
that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the
notification. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the
Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question
if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed
beyond one year from the date of the notification. Thus, once the Assistant
G
Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became
final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the
~
Wakf Board. The present suit is therefore barred under Section 13 the Punjab
village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961. (137-G-H; 138-A-B}

CIVIL APPEL LA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1938 of 1997. H
~·
130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A From the Judgment and Order dated 6.12.1995 of the High Court of
Punjab & Haryana passed in R. S. A. No. 1712 of 1995.

Irshad Ahmad for the Appellant.

S. Ujagar Singh, Devender Verma, Girish Sharma and Ms. Naresh Bakshi
B for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

M. JAGANNADHA RAO. J. This appeal is preferred by the Punjab
Wakf Board against the Judgment of the Punjab High Court in R. S.A. No.
C 1712/1995 dated 6.12.1996. By that Judgment, the Punjab High Court confirmed
the Judgment of the Additional District Judge, dated 5.10.94, which had
affirmed the Judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Samrala dated
31.3 .1992. All the Courts have dismissed the present suit filed by the Punjab
Wakf Board on merits as well as on the ground that, by virtue of Section 13
D of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 (hereinafter
referred to as the Act), the present suit was barred from the jurisdiction of
the Civil Court. It is against this Judgment that the Punjab Wakf Board has
come up in appeal.

The facts of this case in brief are as follows: On 19.9.70 the Punjab Wakf
E Board issued a Notification under sub- section (2) of section 5 of the Wakf
Act, 1954, treating the property in question as a moslem grave-yard.

It appears that on 21.5 .1972, the Director of Land Records, Punjab,
wrote to the.Revenue Officer concerned for mutation of the land in the name
of the Punjab Wakf Board. Accordingly, the Patwari of the area mutated the
F property in the name of the Punjab Wakf Board. Thereafter, the matter was
taken up by the Gram Panchayat (Gram Sabha) of Hariom Khurd, Tehsil
Samrala, District Ludhiyana before the Assistant Collector, Grade 1, Samrala,
contending that the property was community property which stood vested in
the Gram Panchayat and could not have been mutated in the name of the
G Punjab Wakf Board. On that, notice was issued to the Punjab Wakf Board and
evidence was also led by the parties. Learned couns,el for the Gram Panchayat
argued before the said Assistant Collector that the Gram Panchayat was the
owner of the property which was 'Gair Mumkin Kabaristan' according to
revenue records. Moreover, it was being used for common purposes of all
communities by the Gram Panchayat and was also a site for an annual fair.
H It was contended that the Punjab Wakf Board could have no claim over the •J
' I
PUNJAB WAKF BOARD v. GRAM PANCHAYAT [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.]

. property and that the mutation could not have been made in favour of the
131
A
Wakf Board upon a letter from the Director of land Records. On the other
hand, it was contended by the Punjab Wakf Board that the property was
under the ownership of the Punjab Wakf Board and was being used as a
graveyard for Mohammedans exclusively and was not being used as a
graveyard generally for all the members of the community.
B
On the above contentions, the Assistant Collector held as follows:

'tMoreover, the Gram Panchayat has been recorded as the owner
in the revenue records and the property in question is also being used
for common purposes under the Gram Panchayat. At the same time,
the Punjab Wakf Board has also failed to substantiate its claim over C
the disputed property and has also not been able to rebut the claim
of the Gram Panchayat. In these circumstances, the mutation is
rejected".

This order was passed on 31.3.1986 by the Assistant Collector in favour
of the Village Panchayat. The appeal against this order filed by the Punjab D
Wakf Board was dismissed by the Collector on 20. 7 .1987 Thereafter ,the
Punjab Wakf Board filed the present suit before the subordinate judge's court
on 5.10.1990 for a declaration that the plaintiff was the owner in possession
of the property as per the Jamabandi for the year 1987-88 with all rights
appurtenant thereto. The Punjab Wakf Board relied upon the statutory E
notification dated 19.9.1970 as being conclusive that the property was merely
a moslem graveyard. The WakfBoard contended that the order of the Assistant
Collector dated 31.3.1986 and that of the Collector under appeal were illegal
and without jurisdiction in as much as the notification dated 19.9.1970 was
not questioned by the Gram Panchayat within one year thereof, as provided
in the first proviso to Sec. 6(1) of Wakf Act. F
The Gram Panchayat filed a written statement contending that the
property was not graveyard exclusively meant for Muslims as it was being
used by the village community and that in any event, the suit of the Wakf
Board was barred under section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Land G
(Regulations) Act, 1961.

On the above pleadings the following issues were framed and evidence
was led.

(I) Whether the suit has been filed by a competent person? H
r
\
132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

, A (2) Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession over the suit land?

(3) Whether the impugned order passed by C.A. 1st Grade Semrala dated
30.3.87 is illegal null and void and without Jurisdiction?

(4) whether the suit is barred under Section 13 of Punjab Village Common
B Land Regulation Act ?

(5) Relief.

On issues 2 and 3 , the learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion
that merely by way of a Notification by the Wakf Board, the suit property
C could not become the property of the wakf that after the partition of India in
1947 , no dead bodies were being buried by the Mohammedans in the suit
land and it was no longer being used as a graveyard. A mere entry in the
cultivation column, in the name of WakfBoard would not bring their property
within the ownership of the Wakf Board. On these findings, the learned
D subordinate Judge held that suit property was not in the ownership of the
Wakf Board. The court also held that the suit was barred by section 13 of
the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulations) Act. 1961. In other words. The
decision of Assistant Collector and the Collector was not interfered with.

The above judgment of the learned subordinate judge was affirmed by
E the District Judge in the appeal filed by the WakfBoard. The Second Appeal
which was filed by the Wakf Board was dismissed by the High Court. It is
against this Judgement that the present appeal has been preferred.

In this appeal, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the
Notification issued under sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Wakf Act. 1954 <-
F is conclusive on the question whether the property is of the Wakf or not and
that the decision of the Assistant Collector and the Collector that the property
is not wakf property is void, inasmuch as no suit has been filed within one
year of Notification issued under sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Wakf Act
and therefore, the Notification will remain unaffected, precluding the Assistant
G Collector as well as Collector from rendering any decision contrary to what
was declared in the Notification. For this purpose, learned counsel for the
Wakf Board has relied upon a recent decision of this Court reported in, [ 1998]
2 SCC 642 (Syyed Ali and Ors. v. A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad and Ors.,
learned counsel also relied upon a Judgment of this Court reported in [1976]
4 SCC 782 (Syed Mohd. Salie labbai (D) by Lrs. and Ors. v. Mohd. Hanifa
H (D) By lrs. and Ors., to contend that once property became Wakf property
PUNJAB WAKF BOARD v. GRAM PANCHAYAT [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.] 133

it would continue to be Wakf property notwithstanding non-user by the A
Muslim cs>mmunity. Learned counsel also contended, relying upon Section
2(g) of the Panchayat Act, 1961 that the revenue record does not show user
by the Panchayat and he~e the land stood excluded from the definition of
'Shamilat Deb'.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that B
Sayyed Ali's decision was distinguishable and that notwithstanding the
Notification under sub-section (2) of Section 5, it was open to the Assistant
Collector and the Collector to decide that the property in question was not
Wakf property. Further, once the said authorities decided in favour of the
Gram Panchayat, Section 13 of the Act was a bar to the maintainability of the C
present suit by the Wakf Board. It was also contended that the land was
being used for community purposes as recorded in the revenue records and
was therefore not excluded from 'Shamilat Deh' as defined in Section 2(g) of
the Punjab Act.

On the above contentions, the following points arise for consideration: D
(1) Whether the decision of the Assistant Collector and the Collector
dated 31.3.86 and 20.7.87, respectively, should be declared void, inasmuch as
the Gram Panchayat did not file a Civil Suit within one year as mentioned in
the first proviso to sub-section ( 1) of Section 6 of the Act.
E
(2) Whether on the facts of the case, the Wakf Board could contend in
the Civil Court that the property, even it was community property, was not
recorded as being used for the said purpose and that the present suit came
within the exclusionary part of the definition of' Snamilat Deh' in Section 2(g)
of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulations) Act, 1961? F
Point No. 1:

Chapter II of the Wakf Act, 1954 refers to the preliminary survey of
Wakfs and Section 5 deals with the publication of the list of Wakfs. Section
5 reads as follows : G

"5. Publication of list of Wakf:- (I) On receipt ofa report under sub-
section (3) of Section 4, the State Government shall forward a copy
of the same to the Board.

(2) The Board shall examine the report forwarded to it under sub- H
134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A section (1) and publish, in the Official Gazette, a list of Wakfs in the
State, or as the case may'be, the part of the State, whether in existence
at the commencement of this Act or coming into existence thereafter
to which the report relates, and containing such particulars as may be
prescribed."

B Section 6 deals with disputes regarding Wakfs. Sub-section (I) of Section
6 reads as follows :-

"Section 6(1) : Disputes regarding Wakfs :

(1) If any, question arises whether a particular property specified
c as Wakf Property in a list of Wakfs published under sub-section (2)
of Section 5 is Wakf property ornot, whether a Wakf specified in such
list is a Shia Wakf or SunniWakf, the Board or the Mutawalli of the
Wakf or any person interested therein, may institute a suit in a Civil
Court or Competent jurisdiction for the decision of the question and
the decision of the Civil Court in respect of such matters shall be
D final."

No doubt as contended for the appellant Wakf Board, the first proviso
to sub-section (1) of Section 6 as extracted below requires that Civil Suit shall
be filed within one year from the date of the publication of the Notification
E issued under sub-section (2) of Section 5.

The first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads follows :-

"Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the Civil Court
after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list
of Wakfs under sub-section (2) of Section 5."
F
In this connection we shall first deal with the decision in Sayyedali &
Ors. v. A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad and Ors., [1998] 2 SCC 642, relied upon
by the appellant WakfBoard. The above ruling was relied upon by the learn~d
counsel for the appellant to contend that the Assistant Collector and Collector
G were bound by the Notification as the Panchayat had not filed any suit within
one year of the Notification.

The facts of the above case were that the Dangha in that case was
notified as a Wakf on 30.11.1961. But the Mutawalli of the Wakf had executed
long tenn leases in favour of the defendants who in tum had executed sub-
H leases. The WakfBoard, therefor~ filed a suit on 8.8.87 for cancellation of the
PUNJAB WAKF BOARD v. GRAM PANCHAYAT [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.] 135

leases. That suit came for consideration before the learned subordinate Judge A
on 14.2.75. By that date, it appears that the Tehsildar in an enquiry under

-
,.
,.
Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh (A.A.) Inams (Abolition & Conversion into
Ryotwari) Act, 1956, had come to the conclusion that the Inam was not held
by any institution, but was held by the individuals, that is to say, the
individual mutavllies. This decision was confirmed by the Revenue Divisional
B
Officer. Writ Petition filed by the Wakfwas dismissed on 22.4.70. Relying on
the above said orders of the Tahsildar, Revenue Divisional Officer and the
High Court, the suit filed by the Wakf Board was dismissed by the learned
Subordinate Judge on 14.2.1975. The First Appeal preferred by the Wakf
Board against the said Judgment was however allowed by the High Court and
the suit of the Wakf Board was decreed. It is against the said Judgment in c
the First Appeal that the Mutawali and the said sub-lessees had come up in
appeal before this Court and it was held that once the Notification was issued
declaring the property as Wakfon 30.11.61, the Tahsildar, Revenue Divisional
Officer and the High Court could not decide anything contrary to the
Notification inasmuch as no suit was filed by the Mutawalli within one year
of the Notification. In the suit filed by the Board on 8.8.67, it was held that D
no decision contrary to the Notification, could be given.

It will be noticed, however, that the dispute in the Sayyed Ali's case was
between the Wakf Board on the one hand and the Mutawalli his lessees and
the sub-lessees on the other hand. It was on those facts that it was held that E
the question as to whether the property belongs to Wakf Board or not could
not have been decided by the Tahsildar under the lnams Abolition Act,
inasmuch as the Notification was binding between the Wakf Board and the
Muttawali. The decision in Sayyed Ali is in our opinion based upon the
specific provision of sub-section (1) of Section 6, the dispute there being
between the Wakf on the one hand and its Mutawalli or persons claiming from F
him, on the other. Once the decision of the Tahsildar or the Revenue Divisional
Officer or the order of the High Court dated 22.4.1970 was out of the way,
because of the Notification, the Civil Suit filed by the Wakf Board relying
upon the same Notification could be decreed. That was the view taken by the
Court in Sayyed Ali's case.
G
We are unable to see how the above decision in Sayyed Ali, (supra)
could be of any help to the appellant in the present case. The dispute here
is not between the Wakf Board on one hand and the Mutawalli or those who
: are claiming under him, on the other hand. Here the dispute is between the
Wakf Board and a third party, namely, Panchayat representing thl'\ Village H
...
136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A community. In our view, in this context, the decision of the three Judge Bench
of this Court in the case o~ Board of Muslim Wakfs, Rajasthan v. Radha
Kishan and Ors., reported in [1979] 2 SCC 468 is more directly in point. In
that case, it was pointed out that the words mentioned in sub-section (1) of
Section 6 of the Wakf Act, namely "the Board or the mutawalli of the Wakf
or any person interested therein'', would show that the requirement to file
B a civil suit within one year of the Notification under the Wakf Act as mentioned
in sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Wakf Act was in connection with any ·,
dispute between the Wakf Board in the one hand and the mutawalli, of the
Wakf on the other or any person interested therein. The word "therein" was
interpreted as meaning 'interested' in the Wakf as distinct from interested in
C the property, i.e. a third party. This is clear from the following passage in the
above said judgment (para 33).

"The answer to these questions must tum on the true meaning
and construction of the world 'therein' in the expression 'any person
~nterested therein' appearing in sub-section (1) of Section 6. In order
D to understand the meaning of the Word 'therein' in our view, it is
necessary to refer to the preceding words 'the Board or the mutawali
of the Wakf. The word 'therein' must necessarily refer to the Wakf
which immediately precedes it. It cannot refer to the 'Wakfproperty'.
Sub-section (I) of Section 6 enumerates the persons who can file suits
E and also the questions in respect of which such suits can be filed. In
enumerating the persons who are empowered to file suits under this
provision, only the Board, the mutawalli of the Wakf, and 'any person
interested therein', thereby necessarily meaning any person interested
in the Wakf, are listed, it should be borne in mind that the Act deals
with Wakfs, its institutions and its properties. It would, therefore, be
F logical and reasonable to infer that its provisions empower only those
who are interested in the Wakf, to institute suits."

While coming to the above said conclusion, this Court relied on an
earlier decision in Sirrah Ha Khan v. The Sunnii Central Board ofWakf, U.P.,
G [1959] SCR 1287.

In the present case before us, therefore, the dispute not being one
between the wakf and Mutawalli or the persons claiming under him, but with
a stranger (the Panchayat) the decision in Sayyed Ali v. Wakf Board Hyderabad,
[1998] 2 SCC 642 (supra) cannot be applied. Thus the said decision is clearly
H distinguishable and is not applicable to the facts before us. On the other
PUNJAB WAKF BOARD v. GRAM PANCHAYAT [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.] 137
hand, the present case before us is clearly covered by the decision of the A
three Judge Bench of this Court in Board of Muslim Wakf, Rajasthan v. Radha
Kishan and Ors., [ 1979] 2 SCC 468, for the reasons given above.
-~.411'
We therefore, hold that the first proviso to clause (1) of Section 6
referred to above would not come in the way of the Assistant Collector and
J1 the Collector to decide, in the dispute raised by a third party like the Panchayat, B
whether the property is a modem Wakf or not.

Learned counsel for the appellant also referred to the Explanation added
below to sub-section ( 1) of Section 6 of the Wakf Act, 1954, by the Central
Act, 69 of 1984. The Explanation reads as follows :-
c
"Explanation :

For the purpose of this section and Section 6-A, the expression
"any person interested therein'', occurring in sub-section (1) of this
Section and in sub-section (1) of Section 6-A, shall, in relation to any
property specified as Wakf property in a list of Wakfs published, D
under sub-section (2) of Section 5, after the commencement of the
Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984, shall include also every person who,
though not interested in the Wakf concerned, is interested in such
property and to whom a reasonable opportunity had been afforded to
represent his case by notice served on him in that behalf during the E
, course of the relevant inquiry under Section 4".

Obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not
filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those
interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the prop~rty in
question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under· Section 4 F
preceding the Notification under Section 5(2).

In this connection, we have to point out that the Government of India
has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in Section 6
of the W~kf Act quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can
be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued
G
to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by
the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the
Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question
I if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed
)
beyond one year from the date of the Notification. Thus, once the Assistant H
138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became
final and Section 13 of the Panchayat Act barred the Civil Suit filed by the
WakfBoard.
~-
We, therefore, hold this point in favour of the respondent that the
present suit by the Wakf Board was barred under Section 13 of the Punjab
B Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961. Point 1 held in favour of
respondent.
t
Point No. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant then placed reliance
upon the definition of 'Shamilat Deh' in Section (2)(g) of the Punjab Village
C Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 and contended that this land was not
being used for community purposes and that therefore it stood excluded from
Section 2(g) and therefore the Assistant Collector or Collector could not have
decided any question relating to cases of land which was not 'shamilat deh'.
We shall refer to the relevant part of Section 2(g).

D "Section 2(g). Shamilat deh' includes-

(1) .......... (2) ······:···

(3) Lands described in the revenue records as shamilat tarafs, patties,
pannas and tholas and used according to revenue records for the
E benefit of the village community or a part thereof or for common
purposes of the village; ...,
j
(4) ........... (4)(a) ........... .

(5) Lands in any village described as banjar qadim and used for
F common purposes of the villages according to revenue records·;

Provided that. ............................ .

But does not include land which-

(i) ............. (ii) .......... (iii) ............ (iv) ......... .
G (v) is described in the revenue records as shamilat taraf, pattis, pannas
or thola and not used according to revenue records for the benefit of
the village community or a part thereof or for common purposes of the
village".

H If the land was shown in the village records as act being used for the
PUNJAB WAKF BOARD v. GRAM PANCHAYAT [M. JAGANNADHA RAO. J.] 139
benefit of the community, then this contention for the appellant plaintiff is A
that Section 13 would not bar the Civil Suit. This is because in such a case,
the land will not be 'shami/at deh'. But, on facts, the appellant has no case.

In this connection, we may refer to the findings recorded by the Assistant
Collector that the revenue records show that the Gram Panchayat is the
owner and also that the property in question is being used for common B
purposes of the Gram Panchayat. We have already extracted its above findings
recorded by the Assistant Collector. The revenue records thus showed the
land was being used by Village community. It is obvious from the definition
of 'Shami/at Deh' in Section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Land
(Regulations) Act, 1961 that the land in question did not fall within the C
exclusionary part of the definition. Therefore, the land was 'Shamilat deh' and
was being used as such as per the revenue records. Thus, Section 13 of the
Act would apply and preclude a suit by the Wakf Board.

We, therefore, hold point No. 2 against the appellant.
D
For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal fails and is dismissed. There shall
be no order as to costs.

VM Appeals dismissed.