CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OF AUQAF, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB Versus RASHEED MUHAMMAD

1. The brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that the respondents filed suit for declaration on the following grounds: ‑

(i) The respondents claim as owners of the property in question.

(ii) The matter regarding the title of the property to question is pending adjudication before the Honourable Supreme Court.

2. The petitioner filed application under Order VII, Rule 11, C P.C. for rejection of the plaint The respondents filed reply of the application and the learned trial Court dismissed the application vide order, dated 13‑3‑1999. The petitioner being aggrieved filed revision before the District Judge, Jhang who entrusted the same to the learned Additional District Judge who dismissed the same vide order, dated 5‑8‑1999, hence the present revision petition.

2. The learned counsel of the petitioner stated that the question of title has been finally decided by the Honourable Supreme Court in favour of the petitioner in case of Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab and others v. Chief Administrator, Auqaf, Punjab PLD 1998 SC 132. He further stated that by virtue of section 21, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to take the cognizance of the matter and the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Chief Administrator, Auqaf and others v. Haji Muhammad Sharif and another 1999 SCMR 2795. He summed up his arguments that both the Courts below dismissed the application of the petitioner without adverting to section 21 and the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court.

3. The learned counsel of the respondents stated that question of title is pending at the time of filing the suit between the petitioner and Chief Land Commissioner He further, stated that the respondents have not filed suit against any order of any functionary of the Auqaf Department. The respondents have filed suit against the order of the Collector who fixed the price of lease of the land in question amounting to Rs.1,500 per acre, therefore, the Civil Court has the jurisdiction and both the Courts below have rightly decided in favour of the respondents.

3. 3‑A. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record myself. It is admitted fact that the property in question belongs to the petitioner and the Collector has fixed the lease amount on the request of the Administrator of the Auqaf Department, therefore, both the Courts below Wrongly dismissed the application of the petitioner without adverting to section 21 of the Punjab Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1979. It is also admitted proposition of law that judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court is binding on each and every organ of the State by virtue of Article 189 of the Constitution. Both the Courts below decided the application of the petitioner in violation of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has particularly mentioned ground (IV) which is to the following effect:‑‑

4. The petitioner can take possession of the property in question by virtue of section 8 of the Punjab Waqf Property Ordinance, 1979 as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in 1976 SCMR 450 and 1975 SCMR 104. The petitioner can also recover lease money from the respondents as is envisaged by section 19 of the aforesaid Act as arrears of land revenue. The Civil Court has no jurisdiction to take the cognizance of the matter by virtue of sections 21 and 23 of the aforesaid Ordinance. The Punjab Boards Act, 1976 contained sections 28, 29 and 31 which are exactly similar to sections 21 and 23 of the aforesaid Ordinance which were interpreted by the Superior Courts and laid down principle in the following judgments that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to take the cognizance of the matter:

5. "Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education v. Ch. Anjum Pervaiz 1989 CLC 64 and Muhammad Rafique's case 1983 SCMR 1024."

6. The contents of the plaint reveal that the respondent challenged the order of the functionaries of petitioner, therefore, Civil Court has no jurisdiction by virtue of the aforesaid provisions of the Ordinance.

7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition is accepted ands the orders of both the Courts below are set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.

8. Q.M.IlJM.A.K./C‑31/L Petition allowed.