History books cannot prove the title, Jammu & said. Kashmir HC; declares two shrines and ancillary properties at Kishtwar as waqfs

SRINAGAR: In a case filed almost fifty years ago, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court considered two temples and their attached properties in Kishtwar district as religious and communal organizations and ruled that the petitioners claiming to be the hereditary custodians of the mausoleums had no ownership rights. The court said property ownership must be determined based on evidence, not public history.“It is clear that only in matters of public history, the court can rely on appropriate books or reference documents. Whether a person has title to a particular property cannot be a question of public historical fact,” Justice Sanjay Dhar observed in his judgment last week. The petitioners relied on historical books and records to support their claims.The court termed the case as having a “long history” dating back to 1979 when the petitioner approached the HC claiming to be the “Sajjada Nasheens” or the hereditary caretakers of the shrines of Ziarat Farid-ud-Din Sahib and Ziarat Assrar-ud-Din Sahib and claiming exclusive ownership over the shrines and their attached properties. They moved the HC here in 1978 after Deputy Commissioner Doda described these shrines as properties of religious and communal organizations.In 1998, a J&K High Court judge dismissed the plea and in 2003, a division bench upheld the verdict. However, the Supreme Court set aside the division bench’s ruling in 2013 and sent the matter back to the HC for reconsideration.In his judgment, Justice Sanjay Dal elaborated on the history of Kishtwar and the two holy shrines. Kishtwar was an independent state until it was annexed by Maharaja Gulab Singh in 1821. Around 1681, its ruler, Raja Kirat Singh, converted to Islam.Shah Farid-ud-Din Sahib and his son Shah Assrar-ud-Din Sahib, who arrived in Kishtwar in the 17th century, were revered saints and their tombs became famous shrines that still attract devotees to this day.The petitioners claimed hereditary rights over the temple, saying Kirat Singh granted 20 kanals of land to his granddaughter, who was married to one of their ancestors. They argued that the properties on which they built their homes were private and not a religious and communal organization because no formal dedication had been made by its owner, Raja Kirat Singh.Justice Dar, however, said: “The petitioner has not recorded any cogent and convincing material to rebut the presumption attached to the ‘jamabandi’ (revenue record) entries. Therefore, the petitioner or his ancestors cannot be said to be the owners of the ziarat and the land attached thereto.”Regarding the historical books cited by the petitioner in support of its claim, the court said the facts related to the property mentioned in these books “cannot be relied upon to prove the petitioner’s title”.The petitioners also cited the 1969 report of the Waqf Officer, which recognized the hereditary status of Sajjada Nasings, but the HC said the officer had no power to decide on the title.While the HC supported bringing the temple under the jurisdiction of the waqf, the petitioner could continue to occupy the land as a lessee for residential premises as per the applicable waqf rules.