MIR HAZAR KHAN KHOSO, J.---On 25-10-1898 by way of Hiba the Lambardar and owners of the Shamlat-e-Deh of Mauza Mehro, Tehsil and District Chakwal, alienated lands in the name of Mosque. Income of the lands was to be used by Shah Zaman, Imam Masjid, for maintenance of the Mosque etc. The Revenue Record reveals that the owners would not charge 'Haq-e---Malkana' for the lands. However, subsequently, descendants of Shah Zaman got mutated the lands in their names which gave. Cause of action to the respondents. Thus, predecessor of respondent Gul Abbas and others filed suit against petitioners Noor Hussain and others before the Court of Civil Judge, Chakwal, seeking for decree for declaration that the land under dispute was Waqf property of the village Mosque, hence could not have been alienated in the name of petitioner Noor Hussain and others. The suit was contested and written statement was filed whereby Noor Hussain and others claiming that the land was alienated to Shah Zaman their ancestor as Imam Masjid without payment of 'Malkana' in lieu of his services rendered by him to the Mosque. Their status as such was of an ownership/occupancy' tenant under the provisions of section 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act. In all following four issues were framed:- "(1) Whether any Waqf-Ilallah was created in favour of the village Mosque?
(2) Whether the decree in Suit No. 135 of 1962 was void and inoperative?
(3) Whether defendants Nos. l to 4 are occupancy tenants under section 8 of Tenancy Act? If so what is its effect?
(4) Whether the defendants have become owners due to adverse possession for more than 12 years?"
2. The parties led evidence in support of their respective claims. On 31-7-1974 the learned Civil Judge held that the land was dedicated to the village Mosque and the status of Noor Hussain and others was only that of Mutwalli. The learned Judge further observed that the disputed land being Waqf dedicated in favour of the Mosque could not be owned by the petitioners. The petitioners filed appeal before the District Judge, Jhelum, who on 2-9-1974 dismissed the same and affirmed the decree passed by the Civil Judge. Against the above said judgment and decree the petitioners filed Regular Second Appeal in the Lahore High Court, which to was dismissed by the High Court on 28-11-1994. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. Hafiz S.A. Rahman, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the land in dispute was alienated in favour of ancestor of the petitioners for the service rendered by him as Imam Masjid.
His name was entered into Revenue record in the column of tenant. As he was not charged 'Haq-e- --Malkana' by the original owners he as such had acquired ownership/occupancy rights as envisaged under section 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (Act XVI of 1887). In support of his contentions the learned counsel relied upon the cases reported in PLD 1970 Lahore 619 (Ghulam Mustafa and 27 others v. The Chief Administrator, Auqaf, West Pakistan, Lahore) and PLD 1965 (W.P.)
Lahore 584 (Pir Aftab Ahmad v. Chief Administrator Auqaf, Lahore). In the latter authority definitions of Waqf, Tauliyat, Mutwalli, Sajjadanashin etc. Have been elaborated. In the former authority section 6 of the West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance (XXVIII of 1961), have been discussed. It shows that Revenue entries showing promise of proprietary body not to receive Malkhana for lands in question in consideration of services to be rendered to mosque by occupancy tenants, cannot be treated as Waqf property. The above-said to authorities have no relevancy with the facts of this case.
4. It may be pertinent to observe that after hearing the petitioners' counsel we were inclined to grant leave to appeal, but Syed Misbahul Hassan stood and contended that he was appearing for caveator/respondents. We, therefore, heard him at length. He contended that as there was a confusion regarding entry in the record of rights, the owners of the Shamlat appeared before the Revenue Officer. On their statements and that of Shah Zaman the land in dispute was entered in the name of the Mosque. Shah Zaman was shown to be Imam of the Mosque. The learned counsel contended that the above-said entry belies the contention of the petitioners' counsel that they had acquired the occupancy right on the land. Besides, the learned counsel took us through the Revenue record where the land has been shown in the ownership of the Mosque, but the petitioners and their ancestors were shown as Imams. It may be pertinent to observe that in the case of Ghulam Mustafa and 27 others v. The Chief Administrator Auqaf, West Pakistan, Lahore (PLD 1970 Lahore 619) the Revenue record reflects that the land was Deh-Shamlat and entry was Khidmat-e- Masjid only. But here in this case the Mosque has been shown as owner of the property. The authority, therefore, does not support the case of the petitioners. However, the record supports the contention of the respondents' counsel. There are concurrent findings of the facts of three Courts below which are supported by the record. It is neither case of misreading nor of non-reading.
Besides, no infirmity has been found in the judgments. We are, therefore, no inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment. Leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed accordingly.