The legal question raised in this revision application is whether the provisions of the Religious Endowments Act, 1863 (Central Act XX of 1863) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), except its section 22, hits been extended to the Province of Sind and arises in the following circumstances.
2. The applicant, Faqir Moulvi Abdul Haleem, claiming himself to be the "Sajjada Nashin" of Dargah Mian Ghulam Siddiq, Shahdxdkot, District Lsrkana--- filed an application to the D strict Court, Larkana, under section 18 of the Act against Haji Darya Khan Mastoi alleging that as Mutawali of the above-mentioned Waqf Property, he had mismanaged the affairs and mis--appropriated the trust income. The applicant proved the Court to grant permission to file a suit against hire for accounts and for his removal as Mutawali in the interest of the Waqf. The application was resisted by respondent Haji Darya Khan who fled objections to it but raised no question as to jurisdiction of the Court to grant the prayer under section 18 of the Act on the ground that the Act was not in force in the Province of Sind. The learned Judge heard the respective counsel on the preliminary question whether the Act was in force in that part of the Province. After hearing them he came to the conclusion that the applicant had failed to satisfy him that the Act had been extended and that the Court had jurisdiction to grant the leave prayed for. Accordingly he dismissed the application; hence the present revision.
3. During the pendency of the revision Haji Darya Khan died leaving the three respondents as his legal heirs who are represented before me by Mr. Abdul Hamid Khan. I have heard Mr. Mansoor Ahmad Khan for the applicant. His submission !s that the Act is a Central Act and in the absence of any provision in that Act restricting its application to any specified area, it applied to the whole of Pakistan. This submission overlooks the object and the purpose of passing the Act of 1863. The object of the Act, as appears from the title and preamble, was to divest and relieve the Boards of Revenues and the local agents "in the Presidency of Fort William in Bengal and the Presidency of Fort Saint George from the duties imposed on them by Bengal Regulation XIX of 1810 of the Bengal Code and Madras Regula--petition VII of 1817 of the Madras Code, on the Boards of Revenue in the two said Presidencies to assume the general superintendence of endowments for the support of mosques, Hindu temples, Colleges and other religious and charitable endowments. The Government of India, some 53 years later, decided to divest and relieve It self of the said responsibility. Accordingly it enacted the Religious Endowments Act, 1963 for this purpose and the responsibility was transferred to the trustees or managers of the endowments leaving it open to any member of the public interested to sue the trustee, Manager or Superintendent of the mosque, temple or religious establishment for breach of trust before the civil Court, provided he has obtained leave to institute the suit under section 18 of the Act.
4. The Act. Which originally concerned religious endowments situated In the Presidencies of Fort William in Bengal and Fort Saint George in Madras, was extended from time to time, to other Districts of British India by notification under section 3 (a) of the Scheduled Districts Act, 1874 (Act XIV of 1874). For example, the Act has been extended to some Districts in the North-Western Frontier Province, as will appear from Foot Notes to Pakistan Code, Volume I, 1965 Edition, page 254. On Partition of British India, the Act continued in force in "East Pakistan;" which words were substituted for East Bengal by the Amending Ordinance, 1961. In the First Schedule to that Act, "the Province of Sind" is mentioned as a Scheduled District of Bombay. It does not appear. And it has not been shown to me, whether any notification has been issued under section 3 (a) of the Scheduled Districts Act of 1874 declaring the Act to be in force in the Province of Sind. I am, therefore, in agreement with the view expressed by the learned District Judge in the impugned order that apart from section 22 of the Act, the remaining portions and specially section 18 of the Act had not been attended to the B Province of Sind and that, therefore, the Court bad no jurisdiction in the matter. In my opinion, the application of the applicant has been rightly rejected.
5. The present revision application has, therefore, no merit and i! Is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.