' MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR, J.--- The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment, dated 10-5-2001 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur in F.A.O. No,18/BWP of 1983.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are to the effect that Mst. Anma Bibi, respondent claimed herself to be the owner of the land, detail of which has been narrated in the head note of the petition. She asserted that the said land was herself acquired property and had never been a part and parcel of the Waqf property that the Chief Administrator Auqaf issued a notification in 1960 but not included the said land to be "Waqf property"; that in the year 1972 a notification under section 7 of the Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1961 had been issued declaring the suit property as Waqf property. Later on the said notification had been withdrawn and application of the respondent challenging the "notification" as having become infructuous was disposed of.
Thereafter, the suit-land had been declared as "Waqf property" by a subsequent notification dated 19-11-1976 by the petitioner. The acquisition of land had been challenged" bythe respondent through an application before the District Judge, who after recording, appreciating evidence of the parties, accepted the same on 29-6-1983. The department-petitioner challenged the said order by filing an appeal before the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur, which was dismissed by the High Court vide the impugned judgment, out of which this petition for leave to appeal has arisen.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the application was barred by limitation and the property has been rightly acquired by the "Auqaf Department" treating the 'same as "Waqf property".
4. We have heard the arguments of the learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner and perused the record with his kind assistance.
5. It is admitted position that the "notification" declaring the property in dispute as "Waqf property" had been issued on 19-11-1976 under the West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Ordinance 1961). Section 7 of the Ordinance, 1961, contemplates that:--- "7. Petition to District Court against notification.--- (1) Any person claiming any interest, in any Waqf property in respect of which a notification has been issued under the last preceding section may, within thirty days of the publication of such notification, petition to the District Court within whose jurisdiction a part of the Waqf property is situated for a declaration---
(a) that the property is not Waqf property;
(b) that the property is "Waqf" property within limits stated in the petition: ' Provided that, "notwithstanding" anything contained in any law for the time being in force, or in any custom or usage, or in any decree, judgment or order of any Court or other authority, or in any proceeding pending before any Court or other authority no such petition shall lie in respect of any interest in the income, offerings, subscriptiohs or articles, referred to in explanation 4 to clause (d) of section 2, or the services or ceremonies (Rasoomat) mentioned in section 6.(2)
6. The petitioner had preferred a petition under section 7 (ibid) of the Ordinance, 1961. The Ordinance, 1961 has been repealed under different laws and lastly was replaced by the Punjab Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as "Ordinance, 1979") and after enforcement of Ordinance, 1979, the petition was amended under the law. The Ordinance, 1979 also empowered the District Court to adjudicate upon the status of the property after recording evidence of the parties. The objection of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the period of 30 days has been provided for preferring a petition and that the "notification" was issued on 19-11- 1976, whereas the application had been filed on 3-2-1977, hence the same is not maintainable being barred by time.
7. Section 7 of Ordinance, 1961, has also empowered the District Court, within whose jurisdiction the disputed property situated, to declare that (a) the property is not "Waqf property"; (b) the property is "Waqf property" within limits stated in the petition.
8. From minute scrutiny of the above referred law, it reveals that under section 7 of the Ordinance, 1961 and section 11 of the Ordinance, 1979, thirty days period has been provided to file a petition against the, acquisition of the property by the Auqaf Department. The time of thirty, days will commence within thirty days of the "publication" of notification. Mere issuance of a "notification" is not sufficient nor mere printing of notification in Gazette is sufficient to constitute "publication".
"Publication" takes effect only when notification (Gazette containing) is made available to general public. It has been laid down by the superior Courts that a notification which curtails or extends rights of citizens will take effect from date of its publication in Gazette and not from any prior date.
Reference in this context can be made to the cases of Abdul Wajid and others v. Aftab Ahmad Khan, Deputy Registrar and others NLR 1992 CLJ 247 and Muhammad Suleman and others v. Abdul Ghani PLD 1978 SC 190 wherein it has been observed that word "notification" according to section 2(41) of the West Pakistan General Clauses Act (VI of 1956), shall mean a notification published under proper Authority in the official Gazette. Further reliance can be placed on case of Sh.
Rahmatullah v. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner PLD 1963 SC 633 and Muhammad Ishaq v.
Chief Administrator of Auqaf, Punjab PLD 1977 SC 639 wherein the Honourable Judges of the Supreme Court have laid down that the clause "within 30 days of such notification under section 7 of West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1961", would mean within 30 days time when notification was brought to the notice of general public by normal mode. It has been further asserted that legislature never intended to deprive the citizens of valuable rights by merely printing a notification and not giving it proper publication. Notification, after printing, must be passed on to sales depot and displayed prominently at suitable public places and it has been further asserted that notification under section 7 must not only be published in Gazette but must also be served on person in possession of property declared as Waqf. In an other case The Province of East Pakistan v. Major Nawab Khawaja Hassan Askary PLD 1971 SC 82 it was held that mere insertion in official Gazette of the notification is not enough; it should be published in the manner usually adopted for publication of such documents. The same 'theme had earlier been adopted in case of Balkrishna Anant Hirlekar v. Emperor AIR 1931 Bom.
132.
9. The respondent had filed the application before District Judge before publication of the notification in the official Gazette though it was issued on 19-11-1976, but it was published in official, Gazette on 9-1-1979. The respondent had filed the application challenging its legality after its issuance and before publication of the notification on 3-2-1977 and filing of petition by the respondent before publication of the notification in the official Gazette is not fatal. The respondent has rightly filed the petition before the District Judge within 30 days period prescribed in the law and was not hit by period of limitation.
10. The District Judge after taking into consideration oral as well as documentary evidence of the parties, pro and contra, found the property as not Waqf property. This observation of the District Judge had been further affirmed by the High Court. It is settled proposition of law that where factual controversies are involved in the matter and concurrent findings of fact have been recorded by the Courts below this Court is always reluctant to interfere with such findings. In this view of the matter, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment, which is unexceptionable.
11. For the foregoing reasons, this petition being devoid substance is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.