Khalifo Haji Muhammad Hanif vs Chief Administrator Auqaf Sindh, at Hyderabad S

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Khalifo Haji Muhammad Hanif VS Chief Administrator Auqaf Sindh, at Hyderabad S.6---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.129---Waqf property---Determination---Distinction between religious and non-religious portions---Claim of private ownership in attached lands and structures---Scope---Briefly, the appellants challenged various notifications issued under the Sindh Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1979, whereby the Auqaf Department assumed control and management of certain properties including shrines, agricultural lands, and attached commercial structures; during proceedings, the appellants conceded that religious portions (Dargah, graveyard, mosque etc.) were Waqf properties and confined their claim to agricultural and commercial portions including shops, lands, and structures; the controversy centered on "whether these remaining properties were private ownership or validly treated as Waqf properties and consequently whether the impugned Notifications were lawful to that extent?"---Held: Since initial burden was on the appellants to prove the stance in respect of the Waqf Property, which onus the appellants had failed to discharge---Moreover, non-production of the two Official Witnesses, in view of the adduced documentary evidence, was not fatal to the case of respondent and the best evidence rule as envisaged in Art. 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, did not apply---Therefore, except for the Musafir Khanas situated in Shah Yaqiq Village, belonging to the appellants and relatives, as admitted by the Official Witness, the other lands in question and structure thereat could not be held to be owned by the appellant---Whereas, the ownership status of the shops was not available in the evidence, regarding which it was admitted by the Official Witness, that those shops were in possession of the appellant and his relatives---If those shops were held by the appellant and the relatives under some valid entitlement, including, lease or tenancy, then, those shops were also excluded from the ambit of the impugned Notifications---Conclusion of the point for determination, was that only the Musafir Khanas and shops were excluded from the impugned Notifications and the same were not Waqf property; consequently, notification to the extent of the above two categories of the properties, was illegal and set-aside---Appeal was partly allowed, in circumstances.

Khalifo Haji Muhammad Hanif vs Chief Administrator Auqaf Sindh, at Hyderabad S — 2026 MLD 880 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 MLD