Mere Notification Declaring Land as Waqf Property Does Not Establish Ownership; Dedication or Religious Use Must Be Proved by Cogent Evidence: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Case Name: Punjab Wakf Board, Ambala Cantt. v. Haryana State through the Joint Secretary and Another
Date of Judgment: 14 October 2026
Citation: CWP No. 15419 of 1995
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Jain
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that mere inclusion of immovable property in a notification issued under Section 5(2) of the Waqf Act does not constitute conclusive proof of its waqf character or establish ownership in favour of the Waqf Board. Such a notification does not bind a stranger claiming rights over the property, and the Board must establish dedication for religious or charitable purposes or prove its character as waqf by user through cogent evidence.
The Court further held that the survey preceding publication of the notification must comply with the principles of natural justice and be supported by a reasoned inquiry. A notification cannot, by itself, divest an independent claimant of rights in immovable property.
Summary: The Punjab Wakf Board challenged the Settlement Commissioner’s order dated 29.06.1994, which upheld the transfer of disputed land in Sirsa through proceedings under the rules governing disposal of package deal properties.
The Board contended that the land had been recorded as Gair Mumkin Kabristan in earlier revenue records and subsequently notified as waqf property on 17.10.1970 under Section 5(2). It maintained that the notification conclusively established the property’s waqf character and that the rehabilitation authorities could not transfer it without hearing the Board.
The principal issue was whether a Section 5(2) notification, supported by historical revenue entries describing land as a graveyard, was sufficient to establish its waqf character against third parties.
The Court observed that publication of a list of waqf properties creates, at most, a rebuttable presumption when supported by a proper inquiry and does not conclusively determine title. Relying on Punjab Wakf Board v. Natha Singh, 1987 SCC OnLine P&H 806, and Board of Muslim Wakf, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan, AIR 1979 SC 289, it reiterated that a stranger in possession is not bound merely by inclusion of the property in a notified waqf list.
The Court further held that where a claim is founded upon waqf by user, evidence must establish actual use of the land for religious purposes. Mere description as Kabristan in revenue records, without evidence of dedication or burial activity, was insufficient in the circumstances of the case.
Referring to Punjab Wakf Board v. Capt. Mohar Singh, AIR 1975 SC 1891, the Court reiterated that the existence of a notification or a religious description in official records does not automatically establish the creation of a waqf.
Significantly, the Court noted that the Board had neither challenged the earlier declaration of the land as evacuee property nor the subsequent mutation in favour of the Custodian. It had also failed to produce cogent evidence establishing dedication or actual use of the disputed property as a graveyard.
Decision: The High Court dismissed the writ petition, declining to interfere with the Settlement Commissioner’s order. The Court found that the Waqf Board had failed to establish the waqf character of the disputed land through evidence of dedication or religious use.