SHAHID WAHEED, J. - The appellant through this appeal under Section 12 of the Punjab Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1979 has called in question order dated 22.01.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura, whereby the appellant's petition under Section 11 of the Punjab Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1979 was dismissed.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant filed a petition under Section 11 of the Punjab Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1979 calling in question Notification No. 1(747) Auqaf/69, dated 21.1.1970, whereby the management and control of the suit land was taken over by the Auqaf Department.
The respondent did not appear before the learned Trial Court and resultantly it was proceeded against ex parte. Learned Trial Court after recording ex parte evidence dismissed the petition being barred by time. Hence, this appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that no notification was served upon the appellant and, therefore, the petition under section II of the Punjab Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1979 was within time as mere publication of notification in the Gazette was not sufficient but it should have been served upon the person in possession of the property declared as waqf. In this regard reference was made to the case of Chief Administer Auqaf v Mst Amna Bibi (2008 SCM R 1717); and, that, period prescribed by section 11 of the Punjab Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1979 to challenge the notification starts running from the date when notification is affixed on a conspicuous part of the property sough to be taken over. In this regard reliance was placed on the case of Ch. Naveed Manzoor v. Chief Administrator, Auqqf and others (2004 SCM R 1605).
3. Conversely learned counsel for the respondent submits that Auqaf Department issued Notification dated 21.1.1970 assumed administrative control and management of land in question treating the same as waqf property whereas petition under Section 11 of the Punjab Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1979 was filed after lapse of 37 years and, therefore, it was rightly dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge. In this regard, he placed reliance on the cases of Muhammad Ishaq v. Province of Punjab through Collector, District Bhakkar and others (1998 SCM R 9), Shamshad A.I and others v Chief Administrator and others (2000 CLC 1422) and Ch. Aman Ullah v Chief Administrator, Auqqf, Lahore (2000 CLC 1602); and, that the delay could not be condoned in view of law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Elahi Bakhsh v. Chief Administrator, Waqf Property (1982 SCM R 160).
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. The petitioner through petition under Section 11 of the Punjab Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1979 called in question the Notification dated 21.1.1970 whereby the management and control of the property was taken by the Auqaf Department. The above-said notification was challenged on 12 4.2007 i.e. After lapse of 37 years. The application under Section II of the Punjab Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1979 was patently barred by time. In order to overcome this hurdle the learned counsel for the appellant urges that the petition was within time as the impugned notification was neither served upon the person in possession of the suit property nor it was affixed on conspicuous part of the suit property. I am afraid the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is without any force. The appellant before the lower Court/produced two witnesses. Haji Abdul Sattar aged 60 years appeared as AW-1 whereas Muhammad Nawaz appeared aged 45 years as AW-2.
Both the above-said witnesses have not stated a single word in their statement that they were in possession and managing the affairs of the suit property at the time of issuance of notification.
They have also not made any statement qua the non-service of notification on a conspicuous part of the suit property.
6. In view of above, the order passed by the learned Court below does not warrant any interference.
This appeal is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to cost. .