' Through this Constitutional Petition, Budhu Shah and 4 others, the petitioners, seek declaration to the effect that the impugned notification No,1 (124) DWP-Auqaf/74 dated 15-10-1974 issued by the Chief Administrator of Auqaf, Punjab, Lahore, respondent No,1, whereby he took over and assumed the administration, control, management and maintenance of the Waqf land in Dari Azam Khan, Tehsil and District Rahimyar Khan, allotted in the name of Shrine Sikandar Shah in lieu of the land abandoned in India and the consequent action taken by the Chief Administrator of Auqaf, Punjab, Lahore, of the appointment of Manager Waqf property, Rahimyar Khan, to administer control, manage and maintain the said property, is illegal, without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that Sikandar Shah was the grand common ancestor of the petitioners and others. He was buried in the agricultural property known as Khanqa Sikandar Shah in Patiala Estate. On his death, his land was inherited by his heirs. After partition, the other heirs of Sikandar Shah got their claim verified from India. The claim of the petitioners was settled and they were allotted the disputed land. Khanqah Sikandar Shah was not a Shrine. There was never an Urs of Sikandar Shah and his grave was never treated as Dargah and the benefit of the property left by Sikandar Shah was being used by the members of the family of Sikandar Shah, as is apparent from the pedigree-table (Annexure-C) which shows that the property devolved on the heirs from time to time and, as such, the impugned notification and the consequent action of the appointment of Manager, Waqf property, Rahimyar Khan, to administer, control, manage and maintain the disputed property, are without jurisdiction. The learned counsel further argued that there was no evidence before the Chief Administrator Auqaf, respondent No,1. That the disputed property was permanently dedicated by a person professing Islam for any purpose recognised by Islam as religious, pious and charitable. So Respondent No,2 could not have treated the disputed property as Waqf property and that it was obligatory upon the respondent to ascertain as to whether or not the disputed property was Waqf property and that the impuned notification was made without notice to the petitioners. He relied on 1989 MLD 4757, 1989 CLC 2259, 1989 M LD 953, 1988 SCM R 1269 andPLD 1989 Kar.
293.
' Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned notification. He submitted that the Chief Administrator of Auqaf, Punjab, Lahore, had in fact, investigated and ascertained as to whether or not the disputed property was a Waqf property and that on the examination of Jamanbandi 1972, relating to the disputed property, in which the disputed property was shown as Waqf property, was satisfied that the disputed property was a Waqf property. He has shown me Jamabandi 1972, wherein the disputed property has been shown as a Waqf property.
3. I have considered the matter carefully. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any provision of law under which the Chief Administrator of Auqaf, respondent No,1, was obliged to give notice to the petitioners before issuing the impugned notification. Be that as it may, the assertion of the petitioners that the disputed property was not Waqf property has been refuted by the respondent and, as such, the matter requires investigation, A which is neither permissible nor desirable in writ jurisdiction. Furthermore, an Aernative remedy by way of filing petition under section 7 of the West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance XVIII of 1961 was available to the petitioners and they actually availed of it by filing the same on 13-11-1974 before the learned Distrcit Judge, Rahimyar Khan, for declaration to the effect that the impugned notification was illegal and without lawful authority. Para-6 of the writ petition shows that in their petition under section 7 of the West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance XVIII of 1961, the petitioners have taken all the, grounds which they have taken in this petition. Strangely enough, without awaiting the decision in the said petition, the petitioners hurriedly filed this writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioners, is not in a position to tell the fate of the aforesaid petition.
4. As for the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the benefit of the property left by Sikandar Shah was being used by the members of the family, as is apparent from the pedigree- table (Annexure-C) I find that Annexure (C) is an unattested photostat copy of a copy issued by the Naib Tehsildar, Copying Agency., Central Record Room, Lahore, and the certified copy has not been placed on the record. So, no reliance can be placed on the photostat (copy Annexure-C).
5. Pursuant to the above discussion, I feel that it is not a fit case for interference in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court, with the impugned notification and the consequent action taken by the respondents. So the petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.