ORDER K.N. Srivastava, J. - This is an appeal by the unsuccessful Plaintiffs, arising out of the following facts: The Plaintiff-Appellants brought a suit with the allegation that the disputed land was a graveyard, which was a Waqf property and the dead bodies of the Muslims of the village were" buried there. The Plaintiffs sold certain trees standing in the graveyard in their capacity as Mutwallis. But, on an application made by the Gram Samaj, the SDO ordered that the money should be deposited by the Plaintiffs with the Chairman of the Land Management Committee who shall spend the amount in repairs and upkeep the graveyard in consultation with the persons connected with the graveyard. The Plaintiffs, therefore, brought the suit for injunction. 2. The suit was contested by the Defendants who alleged that the suit was barred by Section 56 of the Specific Relief Act. It was alleged that the graveyard had vested in the Gram Samaj and the Plaintiffs had no right to bring the suit. 3. The learned Munsif held that the land was a graveyard and vested in the Gram Samaj and that the Plaintiffs were not the Mutwallis of the waqf. The suit was, accordingly, dismissed. The learned lower appellate court, on appeal, confirmed the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. Hence, this second appeal. 4. There is no dispute that the disputed plot is a graveyard. It has been used as such by the Mohammedan residents of the village since long. 5. The main question for determination is as to whether the Plaintiffs are the Mutwallis of this graveyard. The trial court dealt with the evidence on the record and held that the Plaintiffs were not the Mutwallis of this graveyard. There was no Waqf Deed nor was there any evidence that the Plaintiffs were appointed Mutwallis of the graveyard. The Plaintiffs could not be appointed Mutwallis by the Mohammedan residents of the village unless it was proved that they had a right to appoint the Plaintiffs as Mutwallis of this graveyard. There is no satisfactory evidence on this point. The trial court and the lower appellate court, therefore, rightly held that the Plaintiffs were not the Mutwallis of the graveyard. 5. There is no satisfactory evidence on this point. The trial court and the lower appellate court, therefore, rightly held that the Plaintiffs were not the Mutwallis of the graveyard. 5. It was contended that the graveyard did not vest in the State under the provisions of Section 4 of the UP ZA and LR Act, as it was not included within an estate. This argument has no force in it. 'Estate' has been defined in Section 3(8) of the UP ZA and LR Act as below: 'Estate' means and shall be deemed to have always meant the area included under one entry in any of the registers described in Clause (a), (b), (c) or (d) and in so far as it relates to a permanent tenure-holder, in any register described in Clause (e) of Section 32 of the UP Land Revenue Act, 1901, as it stood immediately prior to the coming into force of this Act, or subject to the restriction mentioned with respect to the register described in Clause (e), in any of the registers maintained u/s 33 of the said Act, or in a similar register described in or prepared or maintained under any other Act, Rule, Regulation or Order relating to the preparation or maintenance of record of rights in force at any time and include share in, or of an 'estate'. 6. There is no doubt that this graveyard is situated in a Khewat. There can be productive and non-productive areas in a Khewat. A Khewat may include culturable lands as well as rivers, railway lines, graveyards and such other things in it, but they cannot be taken to be outside the Khewat because the ownership of each one of the above things vests in the God Almighty or in the Government. All the lands in a Khewat are included under different heads and categories in the Khatauni such as Sir, Khudkasht, exproprietary tenancy, occupancy tenancy, non-occupancy tenancy, Banjar, Usar, Graveyard, Abadi and other lands belonging to the Government. By the mere fact that a particular area belongs to the Government or is owned by the God Almighty it cannot be said that all such lands are part of a Khewat or a Mahal. Such lands were also a part of the 'estate' and it vested in the State as soon as the notification u/s 4 of the UP ZA and LR Act was made. 7. Such lands were also a part of the 'estate' and it vested in the State as soon as the notification u/s 4 of the UP ZA and LR Act was made. 7. After the land vested in the State, the State re-settled the same with different persons under different titles such as Bhumidhari, Sirdari, Adhivasi and Asami rights. The UP ZA and LR Act was passed with the main aim that the land should go to the tenure-holders and with this end and view new tenures were created in favour of the persons who were actually cultivating the land. Besides the culturable land, there were certain other types of lands in which none of the aforesaid new tenures could be created and they were the lands like Hats, Bazars burial grounds, other grounds and grounds used for public utility, graveyards and the like. These lands remained with the Government. u/s 117 of the UP ZA and LR Act, the management of these lands was passed on to the Gram Samaj. 8. It is true that the graveyard was a property dedicated to the God Almighty. But, the legislature did not think it advisable to create any special right in favour of the God Almighty regarding graveyards. There were a large number of tenures in UP. The legislature had to put in an uniform tenures throughout the State and it was just possible that here or there there might have been certain omissions in protecting a right and the right of the God Almighty and graveyards might be one of them. But, by this omission, no serious loss is caused to the persons concerned, provided the old law relating to graveyards and dedicated properties is applied in harmony with the new Agrarian Legislation. 9. The management of the graveyards like other public lands passed on to the Gram Samaj. But, this did not mean that the G am Samaj got a right to use the graveyard in any way which was not in conformity with the Mohammedan Law of waqfs. 10. Learned Counsel for the Appellants contended that the management of the Waqf properties under the Mohammedan Law must be in the hands of Muslims whereas the management committee constituted under the UP Panchayat Raj Act may be constituted of non-Mohammedans who could not have the right to manage the waqf property. This may be true. 10. Learned Counsel for the Appellants contended that the management of the Waqf properties under the Mohammedan Law must be in the hands of Muslims whereas the management committee constituted under the UP Panchayat Raj Act may be constituted of non-Mohammedans who could not have the right to manage the waqf property. This may be true. But, in view of Section 117 read with Section 4 of the UP ZA and LR Act, the management of the graveyard has to passed on to the Gram Samaj. In this view of the matter, it is necessary that the right of management of the graveyard and trees standing therein created in favour of the Gram Samaj u/s 117 of the UPZA and LR Act be so harmoniously construed that the general Mohammedan Law does not come in conflict with the UP ZA and LR Act, regarding the management of the Waqf property. 11. A question about the ownership of trees standing in a graveyard came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Mohd. Naqi Khan v. State of UP 1965 AWR 371 . The Division Bench held as below: Now we have to consider the question of ownership of the trees. Section 6 of the Act describes the consequences of vesting of an estate in the State. Various rights of all intermediaries vest in the State. According to Sub-clause (1) of Clause (a) of Section 6 of the Act, trees other than trees in village abadi, holding or groves vest in the State. In the present case we are dealing with trees standing on graveyard. This is not abadi, holding or a grove. So, u/s 6 of the Act, all these trees vested in the State. 12. Earlier the Division Bench held that Section 4 of the Act operated as regards wakf property also. So, although the plot at one time vested in the Almighty, the plot vested in the State u/s 4 of the U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. In spite of the vesting of the land, the Defendants had recognised the right of Muslim residents of the village to bury dead bodies in the plot. The Plaintiffs should have, therefore, no grievance on this ground. 13. In Naqi Khan's case, the Defendants had conceded that the Mohammedans had a right to bury their dead in the land. In spite of the vesting of the land, the Defendants had recognised the right of Muslim residents of the village to bury dead bodies in the plot. The Plaintiffs should have, therefore, no grievance on this ground. 13. In Naqi Khan's case, the Defendants had conceded that the Mohammedans had a right to bury their dead in the land. But, on the principle which was laid down in Naqi Khan's case, a serious difficulty may arise because it was held that the graveyard, which vested in the Almighty, had vested in the State after the date of the enforcement of the UP ZA and LR Act. This would mean that the State might stop the Mohammedans from burying their dead in the land in dispute and this may cause serious trouble. To my mind, it appears that all lands of public utility such as graveyards, cremation grounds, Mela land and other lands of public utility were only given in the management of the Gram Samaj for their upkeep so that the land of a particular kind might be used for the purpose for which it was used and for no other purpose. The graveyard being a dedicated property could not be used for any other purpose except for burying the dead bodies of those Mohammedans who had been burying their dead in that particular graveyard. 14. There will be another question that by the operation of the UP ZA and LR Act the property vesting in the God Almighty from the time immemorial could be divested from the God Almighty and vested in the State. This question is not free from doubt. But, as Sections 4, 69, 6 and 117 of the UP ZA and LR Act stand, there cannot be any escape from the interpretation which was put by the Division Bench in Naqi Khan's care. 15. The law courts' function is to interpret the law and not to legislate it. There might have been some faults in legislating the UP ZA and LR Act with regard to graveyards and other such lands. But, we are not concerned here with the wisdom of the legislature. 15. The law courts' function is to interpret the law and not to legislate it. There might have been some faults in legislating the UP ZA and LR Act with regard to graveyards and other such lands. But, we are not concerned here with the wisdom of the legislature. Giving it a harmonious interpretation, in my view, the graveyard should be only used by the Mohammedans for burying their dead not by way of concession by the Gram Samaj or the other local residents but as a right which has been exercised from time immemorial because the origin of most of these graveyards is lost in antiquity and it has been rightly termed as a lost grant. 16. So far as the trees are concerned, there cannot be any doubt that trees are planted in graveyards for shade, for using their planks in burying the dead bodies and for utilising the sale proceeds of the trees, if any, for the up keep and maintenance of the graveyard. The trees standing in the graveyard being prior to the enforcement of the UP ZA and LR Act were the property of the God Almighty and they could not be used for the benefit of any individual. They could only be utilised for the purposes mentioned above. In case it is declared that the trees belong to the Gram Samaj, the Gram Samaj may use it for other purposes which would be against the Waqf itself. Therefore, while holding that the Gram Samaj would be the owner of this property, the proper interpretation of this ownership should be that the Gram Samaj should not use these trees or the sale proceeds of the trees for any purpose other than the one which is not in conformity with the purpose of the Waqf. 17. So far as the present appeal is concerned, the Plaintiffs failed to prove that they were the Mutwallis and as such, they are not entitled to the relief claimed. 18. In the result, the appeal fails. It is hereby dismissed with costs.