Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 14 (JK)

Syed Lutfullah Shah v. State Of J. &K.

2000-02-10

O.P.SHARMA

body2000
1. The only question involved in the case is whether the Ziarat Shah Farid-ud-din Sahib and Ziarat Shah Israr-ud-din Sahib situate in Kishtwar are wakafs as defined in the Wakafs Act, 1978. In case these are wakafs, their management will be under the Wakafs Act and the question whether office of Sajjad Nisheen is heritable or not raised by the petitioner will be of academic interest only because management of such wakafs has to be under the Wakafs Act. In order to answer this, it is necessary to make a brief reference to the history of Kishtwar which once happened to be an independent State before being annexed by Maharaja Gulab Singh in 1821 A.D. It is a matter of history that many of the rulers of this erstwhile small hill principality had converted to Islam. Raja Kirat Singh is said to have embraced Islam some where in 1681 A.D. It is said that Shah Farid-ud-din came to Kishtwar some where in 1664 and died in 1725 A.D. His son Shah Assarar-ud-din it is said had died in 1685 A.D. Two Mausoleums were built at two different places where they were burried. Both these mausoleums are known as the Ziarats of Shah Farid-ud-din and Shah Assarar-ud-din and are visited by thousands of devotees from all over the State especially on their death anniversaries falling on (17th Har and 25th Kartak) every year. While Urs of Shah Farid-ud-din Sahib is a public holiday for Tehsil Kishtwar, Urs of Shah Assarar-ud-din Sahib is a public holiday for the district Doda. This speaks of the reverence the two saints are held by the people of the district. 2. It is admitted case of the parties that before the State intervened in exercise of the powers under the Wakafs Act by appointing Shri A.W. Kripak as administrator, both the shrines were being managed by two Sajjad Nisheen namely, Syed Lutfullah Shah and Peer Nizam ud-din, the later having died during the pendency of these proceedings. Both of them challenged the appointment of the respondent-1 as administrator, Wakafs Committee Kishtwar mainly on the ground that they along with their other members of the family are Sajjad Nisheen of the shrines and this right under Mohammadan Law is hereditary However, while the petition was pending the govt. Both of them challenged the appointment of the respondent-1 as administrator, Wakafs Committee Kishtwar mainly on the ground that they along with their other members of the family are Sajjad Nisheen of the shrines and this right under Mohammadan Law is hereditary However, while the petition was pending the govt. issued notification under S. 6 of the Wakafs Act, 1978 vide SRO 619 whereby list of wakafs of Kishtwar was published. This list included both the Ziarats. The petitioners challenged the notification by filing appeal under section 5(2) of the Wakafs Act which was rejected by the appellate authority on 30-04-1982. The petitioners amended the petition to challenge the report of the Special Officer dated 05-08-1979, SRO 619 of 1979 dated 15-11-1979 and the decision of the appellate authority dated 30-04-1982 dismissing the appeal filed under section 5(2) of Wakafs Act on the following grounds, (1) that the Special Officer appointed under the Muslim Wakafs Act, 1959 had in his report dated 09-08-1969 found that Ziarat Shah Isarar-ud-din and Ziarat Farid-ud-din are out of the purview of Wakafs Act and (2) this report has become final u/s 61 of the Wakafs Act as no appeal was filed against it, (3) the report of the Special Officer dated 05-08-1979 is based on no evidence as he neither invited objections nor heard the petitioners, (4) SRO 619 is invalid as it is based on the report of Special Officer who did not follow the procedure prescribed under the Wakafs Act, (5) the declaration of shrines as wakafs is a mala-fide act of the respondents against their political rivals who are managing the shrines (6) the shrines are not wakafs because the land was granted by Hindu Raja of the time (7) the appeal has been dismissed only because respondent-3 is biased as the petitioners are his political rivals. 3. The stand of the respondent-Chairman, Wakaf Committee, Kishtwar is that petitioner-1 was only a Manager of the Ziarat and his family members have no better right than he had in the wakaf. It is also stated that the report of the Special Officer is in accordance with the provisions of Wakaf Act, 1978 and cannot be called in question. Both the Ziarat, it is further stated have all along been held to be wakafs and the petitioners have no right of inheritance. 4. It is also stated that the report of the Special Officer is in accordance with the provisions of Wakaf Act, 1978 and cannot be called in question. Both the Ziarat, it is further stated have all along been held to be wakafs and the petitioners have no right of inheritance. 4. The writ petition has been filed by Syed Lutfullah Shah and Pir Nizam-din (dead) as Sajjad Nisheen of the shrines to trace their rights as Sajjad Nisheens of Ziarat Shah Farid-ud-din Sahib and Ziarat Shah Israr-ud-din Sahib, Kishtwar respectively by inheritance. Therefore, the question involved is what is a Sajjad Nisheen and whether it is not heritable right under Muslim Law. 5. Mr. Naik, appearing for the petitioners raised a preliminary objection about the competence of Shri B.A. Kichloo to file counter since he was not a party to the writ petition. He next argued that the two shrines are not wakafs as denied under the Act because the land has been conveyed by a Hindu Raja of the time. Since section 3 of the Wakafs Act does not include a Ziarat, therefore, he argued, these Ziarats are not wakafs. The decision of the Special Officer according to him is not in accord with section 4 of the Act because the govt. did not challenge the report of the Special Officer dated 09-04-1969 in the absence of which any fresh survey u/s 4 was illegal. Notification dated 05-08-1979 (SRO 619 of 1979} it is further argued by him is without jurisdiction because the report of the Special Officer dated 09-08-69 appointed under the Wakaf Act, 1959 has attained finality under S. 61 of the Act. The report dated 05-08-79 according to the learned counsel is mechanical as he did not held any detailed enquiry as required under law laid down by the apex court in the Board of Muslim Wakafs, Rajasthan Vs. Radha Krishan & Ors., (AIR 1979 SC 289). Not only this, even principles of natural justice been violated because the Special Officer gave no opportunity to the petitioners to present their case. He also questioned the report and the notification on the ground that there is no evidence that the Ziarats are wakafs under the Wakaf Act. The contention of Mr. Lone is that the preliminary objection about the competence of Sh. He also questioned the report and the notification on the ground that there is no evidence that the Ziarats are wakafs under the Wakaf Act. The contention of Mr. Lone is that the preliminary objection about the competence of Sh. Bashir Ahmad Kichloo to file counter is without any substance because the petitioners have challenged the appointment of Shri Kripak as administrator, Auqaf, Kishtwar, and sh. Bashir Ahmad Kitchloo being his successor in office had a right to contest the petition even if he is not impleaded by name. According to him, counter was filed pursuant to the order of this court dated 07-10-1987 without any objection about the competence of Shri Kitchloo to file counter. Moreover, in para-3 of the rejoinder, it has been admitted that Shri Kripak was sued as Chairman, Wakaf Committee Tehsil Kishtwar and this is sufficient to reject the preliminary objection. He next argued that petitioners being Sajjad Nisheens can not claim any personal right in the Ziarats under law. The land adjoining to the Ziarat, it is further argued being owned by the shrine, claim of the petitioners to inheritance or ownership is also without any basis. 6. Let us examine these submissions with reference to the fact of the case and the law on the subject. The preliminary objection that counter filed by Shri B.A. Kitchloo cannot be treated as part of the pleadings is without any substance because the petitioners have acceptuls his position as Chairman, Wakaf Committee, Kishtwar, the capacity in which he filed counter. This is evident from para-3 of the rejoinder filed by petitioner. So this contention is rejected. The question whether the Ziarats are wakafs as defined under the Wakafs Act 1978 is to be decided on the basis of the admitted or undisputed facts. Wakaf is defined u/s 3(d) of the Wakaf Act. It reads:- (d) Wakaf� means the permanent dedication by a person professing Islam of any property movable or immovable for any purpose recognised by Muslim Law or usage as religious, pious or charitable and includes- (i) a Wakaf by user such as Masjid, Idgah, Dargah, Khankah, Maqbara, Graveyard, Grave Rauza, Mauscleum, Takia, Sarai, Yatim Khana, Madrasa and Shafakhana....� 7. So a grave as well as Rauza is a wakaf by user. The petitioners have annexed a document written in Persian as annnexure-A with the original petition at page 62/88. So a grave as well as Rauza is a wakaf by user. The petitioners have annexed a document written in Persian as annnexure-A with the original petition at page 62/88. In this very document, the expression khidmat Rauza Sharief� has been used with reference to these two Ziarats. Since the petitioners have placed reliance on this document, they are bound by it. Since Rauza is included in the definition so the shrines are Wakafs. Another plea is that Hafiz Anayatullah, predecessor in interest of petitioner-2 was appointed Khlaifa by Shah Akhyar-ud-din son of Shah Farid-ud-din and ever since his successors have been managing the Ziarats as Sajjad Nisheen. Their further case is that they are the recorded owners of the land. But copies of the Jamabandi for the year 1976-77 and 1983-84 Bikrimi show that the land comprised in Khewat Nos. 475 and 474 is owned by the Asthan Hazrat Shah Farid-ud-din and Asthan Assarar-ud-din respectively. The entries further reveal that the land is cultivated by the tenants on behalf of the Asthans i.e. Ziarats. It means the property has been granted to the Ziarats of these two saints who were buried there. Since the case of the petitioners is that they have been managing the property as Sajjad Nisheens, the question arises who is a Sajjad Nisheen and whether the office of Sajjad Nisheen is heritable as claimed by them. Another question is whether Rauza is also known as Ziarat or Dargah. In Committee of Muslim Auqaf Vs. Anayatullah 1974 KLJ 331 decided by the then Chief Justice Late Murtaza Fazal Ali (later Judge of Supreme Court) on April 26, 1974, it has been held that Ziarat or Rauza was a Dargah within the meaning of section 5-D of the Muslim Wakafs Act, 1959. Since both Dargah as well as Rauza are included in the definition of wakaf in the Wakaf Act, 1978, therefore, this holds good in the present case as well. Dealing with the definition of wakaf, their Lordships observed as under:- 31. A perusal of this definition would clearly show that a wakaf not only means permanent dedication of any property but also includes wakaf by user such as a Dargah or a Khankah. Dealing with the definition of wakaf, their Lordships observed as under:- 31. A perusal of this definition would clearly show that a wakaf not only means permanent dedication of any property but also includes wakaf by user such as a Dargah or a Khankah. It is not disputed that in the instant case the Ziarat or Rauza was a Dargah within the meaning of S.5(d)of the Act....� As the petitioners claim right of management only as Sajjad Nisheen, what is their right is also no longer res integra in view of this judgment (supra) where it has been laid down that:- (21). In Vidya Varuti Vs. Barushwami, AIR (Sic) 1992 PC 123, 126 their Lordships made the following observations:-Under the Hindu Law, the image of the deity of the Hindu pantheon is, as has been aptly called a ˜juristic entity™ vested with the capacity of receiving gifts and holding property, Religious institutions known under different names are regarded possessing the same ˜juristic™ capacity and gifts are made to them co nominee.... The manager of the Wakaf is the Mutwali, the governor, superintendent, or curator In Jewan Das Sahu™s case the Judicial Committee call him ˜procurator™. It related to a Khankah, a Mohammadan institution analogous in many respects to a Mutt where Hindu religious instruction is dispensed. The head of these Khankahs, which exist in large numbers in India, is called a Sajjad Nisheen. (22) But neither the Sajjad Nisheen nor the Mutwali has any right in the property belonging to the Wakaf; the property is not vested in him and he is not a ˜trustee™ in the technical sense.� The observations of their lordships of the Privy Council therefore, make the position of the defendant absolutely clear in. The defendant being the Mutwali of the Dargah could not be held to be an owner of the property and his possession was purely in a fiduciary capacity and was to ensure for the benefit of the Ziarat. (23) To the same effect is another decision of the Privy Council in Rustum Vs. The defendant being the Mutwali of the Dargah could not be held to be an owner of the property and his possession was purely in a fiduciary capacity and was to ensure for the benefit of the Ziarat. (23) To the same effect is another decision of the Privy Council in Rustum Vs. Maulvi Mushtaq AIR 1921 PC 105, 107 wherein their Lordships observed as follows:- A Receiver and Manager by virtue of his appointment has no estate in the property he is called upon to control; he possesses powers over it but not an interest in it.� They are trustees in the general sense that every man is a trustee to whom is entrusted the duty of managing and controlling property that belongs to another.� Since the petitioners have no right in the property, therefore, question of inheritance does not arise, This judgment was upheld by the apex court while dismissing Civil appeal No. 1484/74 on 07-02-91 relevant part of which is extracted below:- Before going into this point of law at some length it may be necessary to refer to certain proved facts in the case:- (1) It is not disputed that the present Ziarat existed since a long time and has become a Wakaf by long public user. (2) That the first defendant was the Sajjad Nisheen or caretaker of the Ziarat. (3) That the land belonged to the Govt. originally. (4) That the Govt. granted land in dispute to the Ziarat and not to the defendants. (5) That the defendants were admittedly in possession of the Ziarat and also the properties appurtenant thereto. In these circumstances, it is clear that even if the defendants were in possession of the land, their possession would have to be referable to a lawful title and cannot be treated to be adverse to the Ziarat. In other words the possession of the defendant would be for the benefit of the Ziarat.� Observations were approved by observing as under:- We agree with the above quoted findings of the High Court and approve the same.� 8. In the definition of Wakaf given in the Muslim Wakaf Act, 1959, Dargah, Maqbara, Grave, Rauza and Khankah were also included. These are also included in the present Act. It is admitted case of the parties that graves of these two Saints are the places of worship for those who had faith in them. In the definition of Wakaf given in the Muslim Wakaf Act, 1959, Dargah, Maqbara, Grave, Rauza and Khankah were also included. These are also included in the present Act. It is admitted case of the parties that graves of these two Saints are the places of worship for those who had faith in them. The facts of the case in Civil Appeal No. 1484/74 (supra) decided by their lordships were identical. Para-1 of the judgment reads as under:- Hazrat Baba Ibrahim, A saint, live in the area called Rakhbahu in the City of Jammu. After his demise in the year 1872 his grave became a place of worship for those who had faith in him. The place was called Ziarat Hazrat Baba Ibrahim (hereinafter called the Ziarat). The Ziarat was managed by Sain Ladha, a nephew of Baba, Hazrat Ibrahim. After Sain Ladha™s death his son Miar Lal Din succeeded him. At present the Ziarat is being managed by the sons of Mian Lal Din who died in the year 1963.� 9. The State Govt. had granted some land to the Ziarat of Hazrat Ibrahim. This court as well as apex court held that the grant was in a favour of the Ziarat. In the same way the then ruler of Kishtwar made grant of land in favour of the Ziarats as the revenue entries reveal. Petitioner, therefore, have no personal interest in the property which is Wakaf and defined under the Muslim Wakaf Act, 1959, but also under the Wakaf Act, 1978. So it is not open to the petitioners to dispute the fact that both the Ziarats are Wakafs as defined under the Act. The next question is whether the report of the Special Officer appointed under the Muslim Wakaf Act, 1959 is final and therefore, the report of the Special Officer under the Wakaf Act, 1978 dated 05-08-79 and SRO 619 of 1979 is a nullity. Under the Muslim Wakaf Act, Special Officer was appointed u/s 4. Section 5 prescribes the mode of publication of the list of Wakafs on the basis of the report of the Special Officer. Sub-section (4) of section 5 of the Old Act provided that the list of Wakafs published under sub-section (2) of section 5 shall be final and conclusive. Under the Muslim Wakaf Act, Special Officer was appointed u/s 4. Section 5 prescribes the mode of publication of the list of Wakafs on the basis of the report of the Special Officer. Sub-section (4) of section 5 of the Old Act provided that the list of Wakafs published under sub-section (2) of section 5 shall be final and conclusive. The report of the Special Officer appointed under the Muslim Wakafs Act holding that Ziarats are not Wakafs having not been challenged by the Govt. according to Mr. Naik had become final and therefore, the report impugned is invalid and non-est. However, report dated 09-08-69 of the Special Officer is not inconsistent with the plea that Ziarats are Wakafs. He only found that no wakaf committee had been established for Kishtwar by the Govt. in terms of section 7 of the J&K Muslim Wakaf Act, and as such Ziarats were managed by the petitioners. Paras 2 and 3 of the report are illustrative of the fact that both the Ziarats were treated by the Special Officer as also the Sajjad Nisheen as wakafs. These paras of the report are extracted below:- The Committee of wakafs for this area has not so far been established by the Govt. as provided u/s 7 of J&K Muslim Wakaf Act, 1959 which requires to be done as early as possible, so that proper management to these wakafs is ensured and accounts thereof are maintained and got audited properly as required under sections 30 and 31 of the said Act. Both the shrines i.e. Hazrat Shah Asrar-ud-din and Hazrat Shah Farid-ud-din (Shah Asrar-ud-din S/O Hazrat Shah Farid-ud-din) are being managed by Sajjad Nisheen and Mutwali Syed Hussain Shah Sahib, Chairman Notified Area Committee, Syed Nizam-ud-din, Hakim Syed Shah and other who have got this hereditary right by virtue of one of their ancestors having been nominated as successor (Khalifa) by Hazrat Farid-ud-din in accordance with a deed. These Sajjad Nisheens held the charge of both the Ziarats independently since about 600 years back. Whatever the income whether donated through offerings or Nazur-u-Niyaz that is being spent by these Sajjad Nisheens on the maintenance and repairs etc. of the Ziarats. The said Ziarats have thus attained a separate and independent position and should continue as such. The Committee to be established afresh will have no jurisdiction in the maintenance and other affairs of the holy shrines. of the Ziarats. The said Ziarats have thus attained a separate and independent position and should continue as such. The Committee to be established afresh will have no jurisdiction in the maintenance and other affairs of the holy shrines. The Sajjad Nisheen were, however, are able to establish a Wakaf Committee for the Tehsil Wakafs and give their active support to establish a Wakaf Committee to be recognised by the govt. under Muslim Wakaf Act. The names of these Sajjad Nisheens as representatives of these two shrines have therefore, been included in the panel of members submitted separately for the Tehsil Wakaf Committee.� 10. Under section 5, this report was to be submitted to the govt. who had to forward its copy to the respective committee. It is admitted by the Special Officer that no committee was appointed for Kishtwar and, therefore, section 5(1) could not be complied. Under sub-section (2) of the section 5, the committee had to examine the report and also get it published in the govt. gazette. It was only after complying sub-section (1) and (2) of section 5 that the list of wakafs could attain finality under sub-section (4). Since there was no wakaf committee in Kishtwar, the report of Special Officer remained unnoticed as it could not be acted upon. It was next argued by Mr. Naik that this aspect has attained the finality u/s 61 of the Wakafs Act (new). This section reads as under: - 61. Repeal and saving- The J&K Muslim Wakafs Act, 1959 is hereby repealed; Provided that such repeal shall not affect the previous operations of the said law, and subject thereto, anything done or any action taken in the exercise of any power conferred by or under the law so repealed, shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the Act as if this Act were in force on the day on which such thing was done or action was taken.� The provision will be attracted only if any action had to be initiated on the report of the Special Officer. Since Anything done or action taken� means follow up action under section 5 of the Muslim Wakaf Act. But as no action under section 5 was taken, it would not be an action taken in exercise of powers conferred under the Act. In view of the above, section 61 had no application. Since Anything done or action taken� means follow up action under section 5 of the Muslim Wakaf Act. But as no action under section 5 was taken, it would not be an action taken in exercise of powers conferred under the Act. In view of the above, section 61 had no application. This argument, therefore, has no merit and is rejected. This brings us to the challenge to the report of Special Officer dated 05-08-1979 and SRO 619 of 1979. The main contention of Mr. Naik is that petitioners were not heard before passing the impugned order, thereby he has violated the principles of natural justice. However, the finding of the Special Officer may first be noticed. Paras 3 and 4 of the report read as under:- On receipt of certain applications from the people of locality and others as also from Mahatmim of the two mausoleums and enquiry was conducted by me at Kishtwar during the course of my survey of wakaf property. Statements of a number of witnesses were recorded who corroborated the revenue record showing the immovable property as wakaf property. Only two person who styled themselves Sajjad Nisheens of the Dargah have claimed that they were owners of all wakaf property of the Ziarat. They also claimed that they are the proprietors of two mausoleums. I have examined all the evidence produced including the documents comprising all revenue record and have come to the conclusion that all immovable property dedicated to the two Ziyarats is Wakaf property within the meaning of section 3(d) of the J&K Wakafs Act, 1978. Under the aforesaid provisions of law mausoleum, Khankah and Graveyard constitute wakaf property by user.� 11. The fact it is a Dargah where the graves of two saints exist is not disputed. The fact that grant of land by the then ruler was to the Asthan i.e. Ziarats is recorded in the revenue record. Nothing more was required by him. Moreover, assuming that the petitioners were not given effective hearing, the question involved is what they wanted to prove or establish. In this behalf para-6 of the grounds of appeal filed by them under the Wakaf Act is relevant. It reads as under: - 6. That the properties attached to these Ziarats have been gifted to the ancestors of the appellants and as such are their personal properties. In this behalf para-6 of the grounds of appeal filed by them under the Wakaf Act is relevant. It reads as under: - 6. That the properties attached to these Ziarats have been gifted to the ancestors of the appellants and as such are their personal properties. The appellants and their ancestors have been managing the same. The appellants are in possession of all the documents describing them as being gifted to their ancestors by different rulers and authorities of the time.� So what the petitioners wanted to establish before the inquiry officer was that the land was gifted to their ancestors. But their stand in the petition is that they are Sajjad Nisheen of the Ziarats and the right is heritable. The plea that the land was gifted to their ancestors is also against the revenue record produced by them as noticed above because the land is owned by the Asthan i.e. Ziarat. Regarding the plea that right of hearing was denied. Para-15 of the appeal nails the lie. It reads as under:- That it was disputed before the Special Officer that the properties are not wakaf properties and the Special Officer has no jurisdiction to make any investigation/inquiry or report in view of the fact that the matter is also subjudice before the Hon™ble Court. The officer did not also adopt the procedure as required not even care to persue the deeds, title deeds others relevant documents of the revenue record etc. etc, which is in possession of the appellants to establish that the said two Ziarats and the properties attached to these are the exclusive properties of the appellants which had fallen to them from the hands of their ancestors who were the Sajjad Nisheens of the said Ziarats as their ancestors had been.� This averment in the grounds of appeal that the petitioners were heard, but their claim that they are the owners of the Ziarats and properties attached thereto was negative by the Special Officer. So it is admitted that petitioners were heard, whether their plea was accepted or not is immaterial. However the order of special officer in accord with the revenue record indicating that the grant of land was in favour of the Asthan i.e. Ziarats and since the petitioners were only Sajjad Nisheens, they cannot claim ownership. It is thus a wakaf by user. However the order of special officer in accord with the revenue record indicating that the grant of land was in favour of the Asthan i.e. Ziarats and since the petitioners were only Sajjad Nisheens, they cannot claim ownership. It is thus a wakaf by user. They have abandoned this plea in the writ petition by claiming the right of Sajjad Nisheens of the Ziarats by inheritance. Next question is whether office of Sajjad Nisheens is inheritable under the Muslim Law. This question fell for consideration of a Division Bench of High Court of Calcutta in Mst. Zohra Khatoon Vs. Mohd Jane Alam AIR 1978 Calcutta 133, the Bench while negativing the plea the rights of Mutwali are inheritable held as under:- In general, Mutwali is not allowed to sell, mortgage or lease the wakaf property unless he obtains the permission of the court which has the general powers of controlling the actions of Mutwali. Save and except as recognised by any custom, the law does not favour the right to act as Mutwali becoming heritable. When the Mutwali dies subject to any specific provision to the contrary in the deed of endowment, the wakaf if still alive possesses the right to appoint another and in his absence his executor and in the absence of both, it is the court that appoints the successor Mutwali. The Mutwali under the Mohammadan Law has no ownership right or estate in the wakaf property.� The Bench further held that:- As observed by Amir Ali� A wakaf is a permanent benefaction for the good of Gods creatures; the wakaf may bestow the usufruct but not the property upon whosoever he chooses and in whatever manner he likes, only it must endure forever.� Such being the position, the beneficiary acquires no interest in the strict sense in the property itself though an interest in the usufruct arising out of such property is vested in the beneficiary.� So the claim of the petitioners that the right of Sajjad Nisheen is heritable has no basis and is rejected accordingly. A half-hearted argument was advanced to show that the land having been granted to the Asthan by Raja Kirat Singh of Kishtwar, a Hindu, the Ziarats are not wakafs. A half-hearted argument was advanced to show that the land having been granted to the Asthan by Raja Kirat Singh of Kishtwar, a Hindu, the Ziarats are not wakafs. However, it has already been found that Raja Kirat Singh embraced Islam shortly after he ascended the Throne in 1664 A.D. This happened at the time of visit of Mugual emperor Aurangzeb to Kashmir. This fact is recorded by D.C. Sharma, in his book History and Culture of Kishtwar�, 1995. The grant is said to have been made thereafter as he ailed upto 1728 A.D. So even the argument must fail and is rejected accordingly. The petitioners have thus failed to make out any case for interference by this court in exercise of the powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. They have also failed to show any infirmity in the order of dismissal of their appeal by the appellate authority under the Wakafs Act. All the grounds urged on behalf of the petitioners having failed, this petition has been found to be without any merit because all the issues raised are concluded by the judgment of this court in the case of Committee of Muslim Wakaf Vs. Anayatullah & Ors., 1974 KLJ 331 which has been upheld by the apex court (supra). The petition is, therefore, dismissed with Rs. 5000/- as costs.