1. ' BASHARAT AHMAD SHAIKH, J.---The High Court has accepted an appeal filed by respondents, Ghulam Abbas and others, under section 8 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Waqf Properties Act of 1960 and, after setting aside the judgment of the District Court Mirpur, has held in the order under appeal that the notification issued by the Administrator of Auqaf, the appellant herein, for taking over administration of a shrine known as Khanqah Sharif Bani Sain was partly invalid and therefore inoperative. Hence this appeal with leave of the Court.
2. Administrator of Auqaf issued a notification on 11th of February 1978 whereby, purporting to act under section 6 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Waqf Properties Act of 1960 (which will hereinafter be referred to as the Waqf Act), he took over the administration, control, managemnt etc. of the shrine under reference alongwith the properties attached with the shrine specified in the notification as well as offerings and Nazranas'. The notification contains survey numbers of the land as well as the villages in which the land is situated but in the notification it has not separately shown as to where a particular survey number is located. However, it has been specified that land measuring 195 Kanals 3 Marlas is located in village Bhagal Chak, land measuring 271 Kanals and 7 Marlas is in village Raipur while 65 Kanals and one Marla is in village Haveli Pagaal. The total is shown as 531 Kanals and 11 Marlas. It is also specified that buildings meant for "Langar" and residential purposes were also included in the land.
3. ' Respondents before us, Ghulam Abbas and others filed a petition under section 7 of the Waqf Act before the District Court seeking a declaration that the property taken over by the Aministrator was not Waqf in nature and in fact belonged to them. The proceedings under section 7 culminated on 28th of February 1992 after about fourteen years during which the parties led evidence. The petition was dismissed.
4. ' The decision of the High Court is based on a technical point and the merits of the case, as presented through evidence adduced by the parties, have not been adverted to. The High Court has held that it is an essential requirement of section 6 of the Waqf Act that a separate notification for each property which the Administrator has to take over should be issued. Interpreting section 6, the High Chourt formed the view that through one notification the Administrator can take over "a Waqf property" and not beyond. As a result it was ordered that the impugned notification shall be deemed to be "applicable only to the shrine and not beyond that". Noticing that landed property under dispute is situated in three villages, it was observed that if so advised the Administrator should issue "notifications separately whereby he can assume the administration, control and management of these properties". The High Court did not make it clear whether as a result of restricting the impugned notification to the shrine whether the offerings and "Nazranas" could be collected by or on behalf of the Administrator. It was also left unresolved whether one notification would be sufficient for landed property situated in one village. In forming its view as aforesaid the High Court was guided by a judgment of the Lahore High Court reported as Abdul Majid and others v. The Chief Administrator of Auqaf PLD 1972 Lah. 66 and an unreported judgment of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court titled Karam Hussain v. Administrator Auqaf (Civil Appeal No,9 of 1989).
5. ' On behalf of the Administrator of Auqaf, Raja Lehrasp Khan submits that the construction placed on section 6 of the Waqf Act cannot be sustained in view of the phraseology of that section. He submitted that the interpretation is narrow and technical. His contention is that if a shrine is taken over by the Administrator whatever property is attached with it can be treated as "a property" within the meaning of section 6 and can be taken over by a single notification provided its details are specified in the notification. Ch.Riaz Alam and Mr. Nazir Ahmad Ghauri, Advocates, who represent the respondents, support the judgment of the High Court.
6. ' Section 6 of the Waqf Act reads as follows: "Notwithstanding anything in section 22 of the Religious Endowments Act, 1863, the Administrator may, by notification, take over and assume the administration, control, management and maintenance of a Waqf property."
7. After due deliberation, we have reached the conclusion that the provision of law reproduced above does not admit of the narrow construction placed on it by the High Court. The word "property" is a wide word and is also used to denote not only one but also more than one items of landed estate.
8. If a person owns a few houses and some plots of land they collectively constitute one property.
9. Thus in the present case lands, buildings, offerings etc. were stated in the impugned notification to belong to Khanqah Sharif Bani Sain and the Administrator acted correctly in issuing a single notification.
10. ' The judgment of the Lahore High Court in Abdul Khaliq's case was not correctly applied to the facts of Karam Hussain's case and to the present case. The facts in Abdul Khaliq's case were that in a notification under section 6 of the Waqf Act 34 items of property attached with the taken over shrine were mentioned. The High Court did not hold that separate notifications were required for each of these 34 items. In fact the notification containing all these items was upheld. The dispute in the case arose due to the reason that in the items mentioned in the notification offerings at the shrine had not been included, but the Manager appointed by the Administrator started collecting the offerings also. This objection was raised in an application under section 7 filed in the District Court against that notification. The Administrator realised his mistake and issued another notification whereby the offerings at the shrine were also taken over. However this notification was declared to be effective from the date of first notification. This declaration giving retrospectivity was held illegal by the District Judge and the decision of the District Judge on this point was upheld by the Lahore High Court. The view of the High Court was grounded on six separately recorded reasons. One of the reasons was as follows:--- "Section 6 says that the Chief Administrator of Auqaf may take over and assume the administration, control, management and maintenance of abword `may' suggests that it is within the discretion of the Chief Administrator of Auqaf to take over or not to take over any Waqf property. If therefore, he takes over one Waqf property it cannot be assumed that he has taken over another kind of property also..........................
11. ' Reason given at serial (d) would clearly show the facts:--- "(d) In the first notification, there were mentioned 34 items of property. In the second Notification, 'income from the box placed at the said shrine and offerings and subscriptions made to the shrine", have been added as a 35th item in the earlier list. This process also shows that the second was a separate and independent action of taking over. Obviously, such an action could be operative from the date of its own notification and not with any retrospective effect."
12. It thus becomes clear that there need not be a separate notification of each item of property attached with a' particular shrine.
13. ' We thus reach the conclusion that the order passed by the High Court has to be vacated. As already noted, the High Court accepted the appeal filed by the present respondents on a technical point and did not decide the merits of the case which have to be adjudicated upon. Disputed questions of fact are involved in the case and, since appeal lies as a right to the High Court against order passed by the District Court, the respondents had a right that the High Court should re- examine the evidence. As this Court does not enter into appraisal of evidence, it would be proper that the case may be remanded to the High Court.
14. ' Consequently the appeal is accepted and the order of the High Court is vacated. The case is remanded to the High Court for decision on merits.