Law: West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance, (XXVIII of 1961)

Section: 6,7,18,19

    West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance (XXVIII of 1961)--Ss. 6, 7, 18 & 19-Powers of Chief Administrator under S. 18-Not unbounded and limitless-Chief Administrator cannot with immunity disregard all instruments, deeds, decrees, etc.Order or action of Chief Administrator should be in consonance with wishes of dedicator-Orders passed or acts done in excess of statutory powers-Subject to corrective processes of Civil Courts Scope of S. 7-Property taken over by notification under S. application under S. 7 by person seeking declaration that property was leased to him by previous mutawalli and therefore, tenancy continued to subsist despite notification-District Judge, held, competent to enquire into and decide whether lease valid and subsisting.   Inayat Ullah v. M. A. Khan P L D 1964 S C 126 rel.   West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance (XXVIII of 1961)----S. 7(b)-Words "within limits stated in the petition" Claim that lease in favour of person made by previous mutawalli valid and subs is-ting-District Judge competent to enquire into and decide. Dates of hearing : 23rd and 24th November 1964.   JUDGMENT   The appellant has questioned the correctness of the order of the learned District Judge, Khairpur Mir's dated the 26th of June 1961, by which he held that the lease, of an agricultural property granted by the previous Mutawalli to the respondent for the period of time between 10-9-1951 to 15-2-1965 was valid and subsisting.   2. The facts which form the background are that the Chief Administrator of Auqaf took over a certain property by a notification dated the 31st of August 1960, purporting to act under the West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1959. The respondent, who claims to be the lessee of a certain agricultural and which is included in that property made an application to the District Judge, Khairpur Mir's under section 7 of the Ordinance, that it was leased to him by the previous Mutawalli from 10th September 1951 to 15th of February 1965, therefore; the tenancy was subsisting in his favour in spite of the notification. The learned District Judge has come to the conclusion that the…