Graveyard

2018 CLC 217 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

Ss. 7, 6 & 2(d)Administrator of AuqafControl of Waqf propertyGraveyardUse and characterAdministrator Auqaf took-over control of Waqf property

Applicant moved application for cancellation of impugned notification whereby control of the property was taken by Administrator Auqaf, which was accepted

Validity

District Court could decide controversy where it was claimed that property under notification was not a Waqf property

Property in question 'shrine and its attached property' was a Waqf property

Any property notwithstanding the fact as by whom it had been built or brought up if stood on the expense of the shrine would be included in the Waqf property

Land of graveyard was reserved for the Muslims of the area and could not be declared the property of any individual or institution

Only shrine and its connected property was taken over through the impugned notification

Said notification did not mention anything with regard to graveyard

Graveyard could not be declared as attached or part of shrine due to its different use and character

Azad Jammu and Kashmir Waqf Properties Act, 1960 was not intended to take control of the general graveyard

Inclusion of graveyard in the impugned notification was against the law and ineffective

Administrator Auqaf must have assumed the control of Waqf property only by excluding the land of graveyard

Impugned notification to the extent of land of shrine had been issued rightly and competently and to the extent of remaining land, same was bad in law

Prior to the promulgation of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Waqf Properties Act, 1960 all religious properties were in the control of relevant Muslim families or the individuals

Azad Jammu and Kashmir Waqf Properties Act, 1960 had been enforced to regulate such properties

Beneficiary of such properties howsoever old might be did not have any right to claim his ownership on such property rather same had been declared as Waqf property

Impugned notification had been wrongly and illegally set aside to the extent of Masjid, Madarsa and shops by the Trial Court

Notification to the extent of remaining land reserved for graveyard was bad in law and was declared ab-initio void

Impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court was modified in circumstances

Order accordingly.

2017 PLD 347 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Reglns. 56 & 57Defence Housing Authority Construction and Development Regulations, 2009, Regln. 53Defence Housing Authority Lahore Order, (26 of 2002), Arts.4(2), 7(2)(k), 13 & 23Defence Housing Authority ("housing authority)GraveyardEligibility for burial

Housing authority had a burial policy with regard to its graveyard which stated that such facility was only available for the parents, spouse, dependent children of the registered persons/members/owners of plot or building in the Housing Authority

Legality

Housing Authority had allocated specific areas, for use of residential and commercial purposes, and also earmarked/reserved areas to provide essential needs to its residents, consisting of parks, graveyards, parking areas etc.

Since the management and control of the specified areas was with the Housing Authority, it had made Regulations and Policies, to manage the areas for better allocation of its resources to create structural harmony, privacy, security and tranquillity for its residents, who had developed vested rights through ownership of any plot or building

Vested rights of the owners of the Housing Authority may be harmed, encroached and restricted if persons other than registered person, members or owners of any plot/building in the Housing Authority were allowed to be buried in its graveyards

Intra-court appeal was dismissed accordingly.

2017 PLD 347 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Reglns. 56 & 57Defence Housing Authority Construction and Development Regulations, 2009, Regln. 53Punjab Waqf Properties Ordinance (IV of 1979), S. 2(e)Defence Housing Authority ("Housing Authority)Graveyard

Whether graveyards in the Housing Authority could be declared to be "waqf property" and used for burial of public-at-large

Property owned by a private entity and specified to provide facilities to the members could not be used for burial of dead bodies of public-at-large

Housing Authority was expected to act in the interest of its members by providing amenities and facilities and not to take away such rights by allowing everyone or public-at-large to be buried in its specified area

Graveyard in the Housing Authority did not fall within the definition of 'waqf'

Even if such graveyard was considered as 'waqf', it did not create any right in favour of public-at-large who could claim to be buried in the said property

Property was allocated in the master plan of the Housing Authority for specific purpose and the waqf, if considered, was for specific purpose to accommodate the needs of the members and owners of the Housing Authority

Intra-court appeal was dismissed accordingly.

1989 SCMR 1318 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S.93(2)GraveyardShamilat DehJamabandi for the year 1951-52 showed that the whole Khasra was part of the Shamilat Deh

Existence of houses of the grave-diggers on a part of the Khasra was not unnatural but there was no evidence on record that they had been permitted to occupy a part of the graveyard to a capacity other than as licensee to perform their function as grave digger

Claim of grave-diggers that they were owners of the land was not sustainable.