1996 PLP 1328 (CLC)

Date of hearing: 25th May, 1995. Brief facts as alleged in this writ petition are that after the death of Khawaja Faiz Ahmad, the petitioner's father Khawaja Abdul Karim was appointed as Sajada Nashin of Shrine Hazrat Khawaja Ghulam Farid of Kot Mithan Sharif, District Rajanpur. It has been further claimed that even after the death of Faiz Farid son of Khawaja Faiz Ahmad, the petitioner's father continued performing all the duties of Sajada Nashin. He was subsequently inducted as a Sajada Nashin and his Dastarbandi was duly performed. Nawab of Bahawalpur and other celebrities also took part in that ceremony. When Khawaja Abdul Karim died in the year 1992, the petitioner being his male eldest son was inducted as Sajada Nashin of the same shrine wherein the political highups and the elite of the locality took part.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Auqaf Department took over the administrative control of the shrine and the properties attached to it vide Notification No. SOP‑111(55) Auqaf/60, dated 15‑2‑1977. He states that even after the Auqaf Department took cage of the shrine, the petitioner's father continued as Sajada Nashin and on his damand Faridi Mahal containing nine rooms was released by the Auqaf Department. It has been further submitted that to the utter astonishment of the petitioner a news item appeared in the daily 'Khabrani' wherein it was mentioned that respondent No.6 Khawaja Ahmad Ali Sain was appointed as Sajada Nashin of the said holy Shrine and Dastarbandi was preformed. Amongst others, Minister of Excise and Taxation and Manager Auqaf, respondent No.5 were present therein. The learned counsel also maintained that Chief Administrator Auqaf respondent No.2 was not lawfully authorised to assume the control of Darbar and the properties attached thereto without the prior permission of the present petitioner. He contends that once the petitioner was inducted as Sajada Nashin the respondents could not be appointed for the same purpose. Some photographs have also been appended to the writ petition. The aim of appending these photographs appears to show that the petitioner has been functioning as Sajada Nashin.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the writ petition was frivolous and had no substance.

4. I have given the anxious consideration to the arguments of both the learned counsel. I am of the opinion that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are of no consequence. The record including the parawise comments filed on behalf of respondent No. l reveals that FaridJi Mahal consisting of nine rooms including 22 Hujras at the request of the petitioner's father Khawaja Abdul Karim was not included in the list attached by the Auqaf Department. The status of Sajada Nashin could not be conferred upon him ipso A facto. It is the prerogative of the Chief Administrator to allow any person to perform any service or ceremony at the same shrine. It will be advantageous to reproduce section 7(2) of Punjab Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1979:‑‑ "No person shall perform services of ceremonies (Rasoomat) referred to in subsection (1) except with the prior permission of the Chief Administrator and in accordance with such directions as may be given by him." The Chief Administrator Auqaf, Punjab, Lahore (respondent No.2) was not vested with the jurisdiction to appoint any one as Sajada Nashin and, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel that he has been functioning as Sajada Nashin was quite fallacious and did not reflect the correct state of affair. 8 Admittedly under the law the respondent No.2 did not need the guidance or advice of any person to assume the administration of the control of the holy shrine. However, it has been submitted by the respondent that if an application is submitted by the petitioner to allow him to perform Rasoomat (ceremony), it shall be disposed of in accordance With the law.

5. In view of above discussion, the submission of the petitioner that he was or may be appointed as Sajada Nashin fizzles out. However, if the petitioner is desirous to perform any service of ceremony, he may file an application to the respondents, if so, advised. With these observations this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. A.A./M‑38/L Petition dismissed.