GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.-This order shall also dispose of three other appeals, namely F. A. O. 136, 158 and 159 of 1977, as they involve similar questions of fact and law. The appellant is the Sajjada Nashin of the Shrine of Baba Farid Shakar Ganj, Pakpattan, District Sabiwal. He held considerable agricultural land and other property in that capacity. On the promulgation of. Land Reforms.
Regulation 64 of 1959, he was found to be owner of land equivalent to 2,54,805 P. I. U. He surrendered the excess land under that Regulation and retained 36,000 P. I. U. As the permissible holding. Another arrangement allowed was that he could make gift out of the area allowed to be retained. The Land Commission further permitted him to retain the excess land for the upkeep of the Shrine under paras. 27 and 28-A of the said Regulation.
2. On 17th January, 1961, the Auqaf Department assumed management, control and administration of the waqf property vide notification Exh. P.
16. Another notification dated 12th September, 1969 (Exh. P. 18) amending the original Schedule of the property was thereafter issued. By this notification was taken over an area measuring 18 kanals 17 marlas containing the holy Shrine and some houses and shops as fully described therein. This notification was challenged by Diwan Bakhtiar Said Muhammad before the District Judge vide Petition No. 1 of 1969. Another Petition No. 2 of 1969, of Diwan Ghulam Qutbuddin and others challengdd the taking over of house No. 17/17 which was claimed by Diwan Sahib to be his personal property. He had cold the same under a registered sale-deed dated 5th May, 1966 (Exh. P. 1) to Muhammad Sharif etc.
3. A third notification Exh. P. 3 was again issued on 17th December, 1969, in which agricultural properties situate in villages
(i) Muhammad Pur Jagir, measuring 4111 kanals 1 marla ;
(ii) Dhaku Chishti, measuring 483 kanals 15 marlas ;
(iii) Maulia Chishti, measuring 2002 kanals 13 marlas ;,
(iv) Dhamiana measuring 3287 kanals 13 marlas
(v) Pakpattan Sakni, measuring 176 kanals 18 marlas ;
(vi) Pakpattan Urban measuring 1328 kanals 7 marlas, and
(vii) Urban lands in Pakpattan urban and agricultural land in village Pakpattan rural measuring 3003 kanals 17 marlas, claimed by Diwan Ghulam Qutbuddin and some were taken over as wagf property. The appellants Diwan Ghulam Qutbuddin and his sons Mahmood Masud, Said Mahmood and Asmat Said Mahmood in one case and Diwan Bakhtiar Said Muhammad in another challenged the above notification before the District Judge on 3rd January, 1970, vide Petitions Nos.4 of 1970, and 3 of 1970 respectively. The parties relied mainly on documentary evidence.
4. On 19th September, 1972, the Chief Administrator of Auqaf issued another notification taking over and assuming control, etc. Of a plot of land measuring 2 kanals 7-marlas and 3 sirsahis, situate in Sahiwal as belonging to the holy Shrine. This and other lands had been sold by Diwan Qutbuddin to Muhammad Ashraf and others. There was a partition and this one fell to the share of Muhammad Ashraf. He constructed a market thereon known as Ashraf Market with a large number of shops.
Muhammad Ashraf assailed that notification through Petition No. 3 of 1972.
5. The District Judge vide his order dated 18th May, 1977, held that the entire property as detailed in Exh. P. 3 excluding the House No. 1060, in Pakpattan as mentioned in Exh. P. 27, and an area measuring 167 acres, 5 kanals, 7 marlas as described in Exh. P. 26-A owned by Bakhtiar Said Muhammad was waqf property and had been rightly taken over by the Chief Administrator of Auqaf. He thus partly accepted the petitions filed by Diwan Bakhtiar Said Muhammad but rejected all the others. They have now challenged the orders passed against them before this Court through these appeals.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants raised the following points :-
(1) the property in question was the personal property of the appellants and had never been dedicated or used as wagf property in accordance with the provisions of the Waqf Ordinance ;
(2) as the appellants were held to be owners under Land Reforms Regulations the Auqaf Department was bound by the said finding and could not reopen the same.
7. The learned counsel submitted that as none of-the parties are asserting that the property in question had been expressly dedicated as a waqf property, the only provision of law applicable to it may be the definition as given in section 2(d) read with Explanation I of the West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance. The necessary ingredient of `Waqf property' as given in Explanation I is that it was being used as such since time immemorial for religious, charitable etc. Purposes. He also referred to Explanation VI to say that there should be a permanent dedication for the purpose. In support he referred to certain documents on record to prove that the entire property in dispute is self-acquired.
8. Before going into the details it may be useful to state that the lands in dispute are situate in a number of villages. All these lands devolved from one Sajjada Nashin on the other. In 1884 when Diwan Allah Jowaya was the Sajada Nashin, he executed a will on 29th July adopting Diwan Said Muhammad as his son. Diwan Qutbuddin and Diwan Bakhtiar Said Muhammad are sons of Diwan Said Muhammad. According to the will the entire property and office of the Sajjada Nashin had to go to Diwan Said Muhammad. Diwan Said Muhammad in turn also executed a will on 8th March, 1933, that the properties and office mentioned above shall devolve on Diwan Ghulam Qutbuddin.
9. By another will dated 24th December, 1934, Diwan Said Muhammad gave away his other properties to his daughters and sisters. The wills are said to have been given effect to in the revenue papers. However, the origin of the properties in question in each case the Riwaj-i-Aam and Shart Wajibul Arz.For all those villages are separately given. It will, therefore, be beneficial to take up each and every village and consider the nature and status of the properties there.
10. Muhammadpur Jagir.-Exhibit D. 3 is the pedigree-table as well as Shart Wajibul Arz of this village prepared in 1872. It gives a flair idea of the mode of appointment of Sajjada Nashin and the exclusion from inheritance of his brothers and sons. It is specifically provided therein that the Saj.3ada Nashin alone becomes the owner and the others do not have any concern with the estate. This village was colonized by Diwan Sheikh -Muhammad, Sajjada Nashin, with the permission of the then ruler 10 generations back.
This was being inherited only by the Sajjada Nashtns throughout and no other person can claim any right in it. It was subject to land revenue. Exhibit D. 7 is the pedigree-table of 1896-97. The note therein also states that only the Sajjada Nashin and no other person has any right in it. According to Exh. D. 27 this village was given as Jagir in 1854 in the name of Khanqah Baba Farid. Shakar Ganj.
Exh. D. 30 is also a pedigree-table. It also shows that its rights of ownership are under the Sa,Oada Nashin Pakpattan and that it is a perpetual Jagir in the name of Khanqah. Exhs. D. 28 and D. 29 also show it to be a Jagir.
11. Dhaku Chishti.-Exhibit D. 2 shows that Sheikh Subhan Sajjada Nashin colonized jungle with the permission of the- ruler of the tune without payment of any premium and since then the land continued in the possession of the Sajjada Nashin. Every Sajjada Nashin has been recorded as the owner and the other members of the tribe having no right or concern with it, the question of its partition or division never arose. The village is subject to payment of land revenue. As regards devolution, the Sajjada Nashin, whosoever he may be, is the owner and no other person can claim any benefit. - Exh. D. 6 is the pedigree-table showing the devolution from Sajjada Nashin to Sajjada Nashin. There is also a note saying that this village is under the Shrine of Bawa Farid Shakar Gani and whosoever is the Sajjada Nashin is the owner.
12. Maulia Chishti.-Exhibit D. 4 is the pedigree-table and Shart Wajibul Arz of 1874. It is interesting to see a note therein saying that though the 1 and has devolved from father to son but the devol,:c;an was from Sajjada Nashin to Sajjada Nashin and not from father to son. The description given underneath shows that the village was colonized during the time of Diwan Ghulam Ras cool by Maulvi Muhammad Yar Chishti who gifted it thereafter in the name of Dawan Ghulam Rasool, Sajlada Nashin. Khanqah Baba Farid Sbakar Ganj, and it was thereafter devolved on Sajjada Nashin--About division of property it is stated that as against the custom in the tribe of Chishti, the estate devolved on Sajjada Nashin without division. Exh. D. 8 is a pedigree-table of 1896-97 and gives the same particulars as noted in Exh. D. 4 above. It shows that since its creation the village was under the control and possession of Gaddi Nashins. Exh. D. 13 the Jamabandi for 1896-97 shows that 1/6th of the land revenue had been remitted in the name of Khanqah Baba Farid Shakar Ganj for its expenses.
13. Dhamiana.-Exhibit D. 49 is a pedigree-table as well as Shart Wajibul Arz of 1897. It shows that various persons including Diwan Allah Jawaya were in possession of various parcels of land between 1861-65. It was in the ownership of the Settlement Officer while Diwan Said Muhammad was appointed as Taqhad-Khawah. It was ,later settled under the different names of wells and constituted into a village. During consolidation pro--ceedings village Dhamiana came into being and was made liable to land revenue. .Exhs. D. 47 and D. 48 show that ownership rights were granted by the Government on 31st March, 1898. These documents also show mutation of names from Diwan Sheikh Muhammad to Diwan Said Muhammad. Exhibit D. 40 is mutation attested on the demise of Diwan Abdul Rehman Sajjada Nashin in favour of Diwan Fateh Muhammad, Sajjada Nashin, vide order dated 17th November, 1891. Exhs. D. 44 to D. 45 are also similar mutations. Exh. D.
46 is a mutation from Diwan Fateh Muhammad to Diwan Said Muhammad. Exh. P. 7 is a record of rights for 1956-57 showing the total ownership as 3287 kana1s 13 marlas in the name of Diwan Ghulam Qutbuddin. Exh. P. 30 is a mutation dated 7th September, 1958, showing gift of land by Diwan Ghulam Qutbuddin to his -brother Diwan Bakhtiar Said Muhammad vide registered deed dated 6th August, 1958. This was later changed in the name of Shrine vide order dated 24th August, 1960, by the A. C.
11. On appeal it was again reversed in the name of Bakhtiar Said Muhammad.
14. Pakpattan rural.-Exhibit P. 28 is the Shart Wajibul Arz of 1896-97. This village was occupied by Baba Sahib Farid Shakar Ganj in 633 Hijra. Diwan Abdul Subhan Sajjada Nashin became the ruler of this area in the reign of Muhammad Shah including this village. All other people who became owners because of purchase, gift, etc. Have been so recorded in the Settlement record. The entire remaining area of the village was in the ownership of Sajjada Nashins. In 1914 the Diwan Allah Jowaya surrendered 5/6 of the land of the village excluding that under the wills to certain Hindus who had agreed to pay all the Government dues which were in arrears due to bad financial position of the Sajjada Nashin. Exhibit P. 31 is a mutation showing sale of 99 kanals . 15 marlas of land by Diwan Ghulam Qutbuddin to Fazal Muhammad in 1954. Exh. P. 29 is another such sale mutation by the same vendor in favour of Muhammad Falak Sher for 18 kanals 19 marlas.
15. Exh. P: 38 is a Shart Wajibul Arz of 1894 giving conditions about use of water of well known as Khawaja Diwan Wala. It is laid down at the end that the revenue is payable by the Sajada Nashin.
Exhibit P. 25 is the record of rights of village Pakpattan for 1872 giving total area in the name of Diwan Allah Jawaya. Exhibit P. 26 is for the year 1896-97. Exhs. P. 4 and D. 50 are the record of rights for the 1956-57 showing that Ghulam Qutbuddin was recorded as the owner in the ownership columnExh. D. 56 is a J4mabandi for 1936-37 showing that Diwan Qutbuddin owned 1/4 share in agricultural lard in village Pakpattan where 3/4 was with Ghulam Rasool etc. Exh, D. 57 is a Mutation No: 1004 of inheritance of Diwan Said Muhammad in favour of his son Diwan Qutbuddin for the area in village Pakpattan. It was attested on 3rd January, 1935. Exh. D. 58 is Mutation No. 1005 about inheritance of the estate of Diwan Said Muhammad in favour of his two sons Diwan Ghulam Qutbuddin and Diwan Bakhtiar Said Muhammad.
16. Pakpattan urban.-Exhibit P. 28 applies equally to the urban area asit was originally rural and it directly concerned it. Exh. P. 6 is the record of rights of Sakni land in the year 1957-58. In the ownership column name of Diwan Ghulam Qutbuddin son of Diwan Said Muhammad is recorded.
Exh. P. 5 concerns urban agricultural land which is shown in the name of Diwan Ghulam Qutbuddin in the ownership column. Exhibit P1 is a sale--deed of House No. 17/17 situate on the north side of the "'brine of Hazrat Baba Sahib made by Diwan Qutbuddin to Muhammad Sharif, etc. On 5th May, 1966.
Exhibit D. 5 is a pedigree-table as well as Shart Wajibul Arz of Pakpattan Town.
17. All the above documents, viz. Exhs. D. 3, D. 2, D. 6, D. 4, 15. 49, D. 8, D. 28 and D. 5 about the origin of all the estates do go to show clearly and unambiguously that all the lands were always in the possession and control of the Sajjada Nashin whosoever he was and the same devolved only on Sajjada Nashin excluding his other heirs if the new Sajjada Nashin was his son and excluding all heirs if the new Sajjada Nashin was an outsider. The pedigree tables furnish examples of it and may quote the names of some of them. After Saleh Muhammad his grandson Diwan Muhammad became Sajjada Nashin superseding his father. Similarly; out of two some of Diwan Ghulam Rasool no one succeeded him as Sajjada Nashin for two generations. Reference be made to Exh. D.
5. The nature of the estate and the rights of the Sajjada Nashin in respect of lands in all the villages are the same. All Shart Wajibul Arz say it clearly and unequivocally that Sajjada Nashins are the owners of land and that the custom and mode as applicable to the tribe of Chishti does not apply to the lands in possession of Sajjada Nashin. .
18. Another important document on record is Exb. D.
1. It is Riwaj-i--Aam of Chishti tribe in pargana Pakpattan. This document creates an exception for Sajjada Nashins in answer to question No. 3. It states that all the sons of an owner inherit equally except the family of Sajjada Nashin where only the next Sajjada Nashin inherits exclusively. There is also an example quoted. On the death of Sheikh Braharn Sajjada Nashin his younger son Ch. Muhammad was appointed Sajjada Nashin. He excluded Khawj Muhammad, the older son. Thereafter Diwan Muhammad Saeed an outsider took over as Sajjada Nashin and he again exclude Khawaj Muhammad.
19. Undoubtedly. Therefore, the properties in dispute remained in possession ofSajjada Nashins in their capacity as such and not as son or heir of the previous Sajjada Nashin. Exh. D. 16 has a specific note that the village 's under the Shrine and only the Sajjada Nashin is the owner. Exh. D. 4 gives clearer picture by saying that though the land has devolved from father to son yet 'the devolution was from Sajjada Nashin to Sajjada Nashin and not from father to son. This position was crystallized in the litigation mentioned below between Diwan Ghulam Rasool and Ghulam Qutbuddin; the predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants.
20. There are two reported decisions about the same Shrine. The litigation was between two contenders of the office of Sajjada Nashin who claimed the office as well as the same movable and the immovable properties attached to it. In Sayed Muhammad v. Fateh Muhammad ((1895) 22 Cal. 324), the suit was filed by Sayed Muhammad. He prayed for a declaration to be duly appointed Sajjada Nashin and to have a decree for possession of village lands, buildings and movable property scheduled with the plaint. The facts given therein show that the properties went with the `gaddi'. Precisely similar dispute arose between Ghulam Rasool and Ghulam Qutbuddin reported as AIR 1942 Lah.
145. The point therein made was also with regard to office of Sajjada Nashin together with possession of the Shrine and of the valuable properties appertaining thereto.
The above two judgments were relied upon under section 42 of the Evidence Act as very important pieces of evidence in favour of the fact that the properties in dispute were tied to the office of Sajjada Nashin. It may be noted that the Division Bench of this Court which decided the above case did accept the same contention to rely on the previous case decided by the Privy Council.
Mutations Exhs. D. 9, D. 10, D. 11, D. 26, D. 44, D. 45 and D. 46 show that all the properties were mutated in the name of Sajjada Nashin after the decision of the Privy Council.
21. In Rasheed-ul-Dulla v. Chief Administrator of Auqaf (PLD 1971 SC 401), it was held that there can be no doubt that Shrine and mosque can be valid objects of waqf and their maintenance and user as such for time immemorial would indicate that they were treated as religious institutions. It was further held that the law looks to the intention of the dedicator and where he is dead and left behind no document or written word from which his intention could be gathered, it would be permissible to look to` his conduct, the conduct of his successor-in-interest, the nature of the objects sought to be achieved and the kind. Of institution set up for that purpose and the maintenance of its uses since then. The learned Judges went on to say that the uniform practice has been for Sajjada Nashins to maintain themselves out of the income of the Shrine whether they be from offerings or from property dedicated for the maintenance of the Shrine. They also recognised the power of a Legis--lature to make income of offerings as waqf property.
22. In Ghulam Rasul v. Chief Administrator of Auqaf (PLD 1971 SC 176) the respondent had taken over urban immovable properties as well as agricultural lands. No evidence had been led in the case as to how those properties came to the joint family from the common ancestor. Similarly, there was no evidence or entry in the revenue record or the mutation registers about the transactions or sale, lease or mortgage and that the heirs of any of the Mujawars at any time were brought on the record as owners. The description in owner's column was all along being shown as Mujawaran of the Shrine of Hazrat Datta Ganj Bakhsh Sabib. The Mujawaran had, at the time of settlement of 1892, made a declaration that all the lands recorded in the three Pattis were not lands owned by the respective Pattis in possession thereof but were in fact owned by Shrine of Datta Ganj Bakhsh Sabib and, therefore, should be recorded as such. A mutation was, therefore, attested accordingly.
23. The learned Judges of the Supreme Court observed that the entries in the mutation registers are by themselves not conclusive evidence of the facts which they purport to record but they were nevertheless not an un--important part of the testimony as to a fact which is. Available. They further observed that the fact, that those entries were made by those who were going to be adversely affected and they remained unaltered, for such a large number of years, even though they were aware of the same, lends them such weight. The learned Judges, however, held that taking over the management and control of waqf property by the Administrator of Auqaf does not mean that the tenancy rights or other rights to possession of persons settled on the land shall be automatically extinguished.
24. In para. 85 of L. P. A. 1420 of 1970 (Chief Administrator of Auqaf v. Muhammad Khurshid etc.) (PLD 1973 Note 28 at p. 147) the learned Judges in a very elaborate judgment approved Piran v. Abdul Karim () I L R 19 Cal. 203). It was held in that case by Amir A.I, J. That the property which passed from Sajjada Nashin to his son without any claim on the part of other heirs was clearly that of Sajjada Nashin of Durgah and not as his personal property.
25. The learned Judges also considered a number of other cases on the point in the above Letters Patent Appeal. In Khawaja Muhammad Hamid v. Mian Mahmud (AIR 1922 P C 384) it was held that ordinarily property that devolved upon Sajjada Nashin, in his capacity as such office holder, would be property pertaining to the Shrine unless there is evidence to show that any part of the property in dispute was in fact private property, not appropriate to the purpose of the Shrine. In Muhammad Kazim v. A.I Saghir () AIR 1932 Pat. 33), it was laid down :- "Provision for a Sajjada Nashia is not a provision for a man but for the institution. A Khanqah cannot exist and continue without a Sajjada Nashin .Sajjada Nashin is an integral part of the Institution and the central figure so to speak therein. Its existence depends on his personality. In him is supposed to continue the spiritual line.Therefore, provision for his maintenance and that of his descendants is a provision for him as the head of the institution. It is a trust and not a personal grant."
It was further observed in the same judgment :-- "Where a person has come into possession as a trustee, he is estopped from taking up the position that it is his private property."
26. The same effect was noted by the learned Judges in Maula Shah v. Ghani Shah (AIR 1938 P C 202), Aftab Ahmad v. Chief Administrator of Auqaf () PLD 1965 Lah.584) and Miran Bakhsh v.
Ghulam Nabi (AIR 1933 Lah. 725). The learned Judges also considered Mian Ahmad A.I v.
Rehabilitation Authority (PLD 1964 SC 229 .) where the property attached to a `Gaddi' founded by a muslim but remaining in possession. ,of Hindus and Muslims and revered by both was treated as an evacuee property by the Rehabilitation Department. It was held that an institution having Hindus and Muslims Gaddi Nasbins may be rare but is not an impossible concept and that the Mujawar or Gaddi Nashin is in no sense' the owner of the property which belongs to the institution of. Which he is a Oaddi Nashin. It was further held that right claimed by such person in the property is the right from his appointment to the office which carries with it the right of management.
27. The learned Judges also went through the cases cited by the respondents as mentioned in para. 90 of the . Judgment but found that none of those was of real assistance to. Them. The .Rule laid down on summing up by the learned Judges, in para. 93 may be reproduced with advantage - -- "If the property in dispute is not inherited by the natural heirs, but instead devolves upon the .Spiritual successor car Chela, to the exclusion of the natural heirs, the presumption must clearly be raised as to its relig--ious or Waqf character, as otherwise there would be no explanation for its devolution from Guru to Chela. In such a case we see no escape from the conclusion that the property must be regarded as one attached to the Shrine or the institution of which the holder of the property for the time being is that Mahant or Sajjada Nashin or Gaddi Nashin or Mutwalli, as the case may be."
28. The learned Judges further observed in para. 94 that :- The position which further emerges from a study of the cases relating to Muslim Shrines is that a Khanqah is a recognised spiritual institu--petition among the Muslims, and that the Sajjada Nashin for the time being is not only the religious preceptor of the followers and disciples of the founder saint, but he is also the Mutwalli and the manager of the properties appurtenant to the Shrine ; that the grants made to the Sajjada Nashin for his maintenance are in fact grants to the institution ; and that if the properties have descended from one Sajjada Nashin to another, to the exclusion of the natural heirs, then they must be deemed to be waqf properties and not the private properties of the Sajjada Nashin. There is thus, in relation to Muslim Shrines and institutions, no room for the argument that devolution of property from one Sajjada Nashin to tae other to the exclusion of their natural heirs, would not necessarily give rise to a presumption regarding the waqf nature of the property. In regard to such institution this presumption is inescapable in the circumstances."
29. It will be further seen that lately the Sajjada Nashin acquired and kept that separate as his private property as is clear from Exh. D.
50. Similarly Exh. D. 56 and D. 58 show that Diwan Said Muhammad owned his private property also which devolved on all of his heirs after his death. This may be contrasted with Exhs. D. 57 about other property which went only to the Sajjada Nashin to the exclusion of all other heirs. We may also refer here to the statement of appellant as made by him on 30th July, 1938 (Exh. L. C. 7) where be stated that the property of Sajjada Nashin was waqf property. He excluded only Exh. D. 18 to D. 20 which was not waqf. The appellant was confronted with that statement .While he was examined in this case. The Chief Administrator of Auqaf had also taken over other properties as noted in Exhs. D 32, D. 33, D. 34, D. 35, D. 36 and D. 52 but the appellants acquiesced in that take over though the origin and status of those properties was quite similar to the ones in dispute.
30. It may further be seen that some of the notes in the remarks columns of different jamahandis and details in SHART WAJIBUL ARZ ,show that the Government had granted remission of land revenue in favour of the Sajjada Nashin for the maintenance of the Holy Shrine. In certain cases, it was to cover the expenses of the kitchen and the Holy Shrine, There has always been a presumption in such cases that the property attracting such remissions would be used for religious or charitable purposes. This situation also supports the case of the respondents.
31. Reliance by the learned counsel for the appellants on the will (Exh. L. C. 6), the gift-deed dated 5th August, 1958 (Exh. P. 25-A) in favour of Bukhtiar Said Muhammad, sale deeds (Exhs. P. 28, P. 29 and P. 31) to say that if the properties involved therein were not personal properties, how could the same be sold by the Sajjada Nashin, is also not correct. The above transactions could neither prove the nature of the property nor the validity of the transactions or capacity of the Sajjada Nashin. The question remains, despite these transactions, whether the properties involved therein were personal properties or waqf properties ? Admittedly, no Sajjada Nashin has any authority to sell any waqf property under the Islamic Law, except with the permission of the Court. These transactions would, therefore, be void and ineffective unless it can be shown that the properties were the' personal properties of the vendor. The appellants, as said above, have failed to prove that
32. The plot of land sold to Sh. Haji Abdul Aziz a part of which devolved on Sh. Muhammad Ashraf (appellant in F. A. O. 136-77) was undoubtedly sold by Dewan Qutabuddin. The validity of that sale could also be proved only by showing that it was the personal property of the vendor. In his statement recorded by the Local Commissioner on 24th March, 1974, Dewan Qutabuddin stated in his cross-examination that some of the houses were inherited by his father Dewan Said Muhammad from Dewan Allah Jawaya while some were purchased by his father. He, however, could not give details of the properties and houses purchased. His denial that the plot in dispute in Sahiwal was inherited by his father from Dewan Allah Jawaya was of no consequence, unless he had shown or proved that it was purchased and that too not from the income of the waqf but some other personal income. In this view of the matter, we are not in a position to accept the contention that the said plot was personal property of the vendor.
33. The next contention of the learned counsel that the Chief Adminis--trator of Auqaf was estopped from taking over the remaining property after omitting the same from the first notification also does not appear to be sound. It is nowhere provided in law that the Chief Administrator must take possession and control, of every waqf property and that too in one go.
Consequently, he could acquire even a part of the property or the entire property in parts. The condition precedent always would be whether the property being acquired is or is not a waqf and a right to challenge the same would accrue to a person who maintained otherwise. No question of estoppel, therefore arises.
34. Again, the objection that after the Chief Land Commissioner had allowed Dewan Qutabuddin to retain some property, it could not be taken over as waqf property by the respondents, has no substance. By his exercise, the Chief Land Commissioner does not determine the status of the property. According to Land. Reforms Regulation, he is only concerned with the declaration and to ensure that any land held in excess of the prescribed holdings was resumed and disposed of in accordance with law. As the Sajjada Nashin. Vas also in possession of the property in a particular capacity,' be was obliged to submit a declaration and the same had to be processed. In this view of the matter the take over by the Chief Administrator of Auqaf of the remaining property would not be invalid on that ground. It had to be shown thereafter in the proceedings taken that it was not a waqf property as defined in the West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance.