. SRINAGAR: Holding two shrines and their attached properties in Kishtwar district to be waqf, the Jammu and Kashmir high court has ruled, in a case dating back nearly five decades, that petitioners claiming to be hereditary custodians of the mausoleums have no ownership rights. Property titles must be decided on evidence, not based on public history, the court said.“It is clear that it is only in the matters of public history that the court can rely upon appropriate books or documents of reference. Whether a person is or is not holding a title to a particular property cannot be a question of fact of public history,” a single bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar observed in its judgment last week. The petitioners had relied on history books and records in support of their claim.The case, which the court called having a “long-chequered history”, dated back to 1979, when the petitioners approached HC claiming to be ‘Sajjada Nasheens’ or hereditary caretakers of the shrines of Ziarat Farid-ud-Din Sahib and Ziarat Assrar-ud-Din Sahib, and asserting exclusive ownership over the shrines and the properties attached to them. They moved HC after Doda deputy commissioner in 1978 described the shrines as waqf properties.In 1998, a single bench of J&K high court dismissed the plea, and a division bench upheld it in 2003. However, the Supreme Court in 2013 set aside the division bench ruling and remanded the matter for fresh consideration to HC.In his judgment, Justice Sanjay Dhar dwelt upon the history of Kishtwar and the two shrines. Kishtwar was an independent state before its annexation by Maharaja Gulab Singh in 1821. Around 1681, its ruler Raja Kirat Singh converted to Islam.Shah Farid-ud-Din Sahib, who arrived in Kishtwar in the 17th century, and his son Shah Assrar-ud-Din Sahib, were revered saints whose mausoleums became prominent shrines, and still continue to draw a large number of devotees.The petitioners claimed hereditary rights over the shrines, stating that 20 kanals of land had been granted by Kirat Singh to his granddaughter, who was married to one of their ancestors. They argued that the properties, in which they have built houses, were private and not waqf, as no such formal dedication had been made by its owner, Raja Kirat Singh.However, Justice Dhar said: “The petitioners have not placed on record any cogent and convincing material that would rebut the presumption attached to the entries in the ‘jamabandi’ (revenue records). Therefore, it cannot be stated that the petitioners or their ancestors were the owners of the ziarat and the land attached thereto.”On the history books referred to by the petitioners to back their claims, the court said the facts relating to the properties mentioned in those books “cannot be used to prove the title of the petitioners”.The petitioners also cited a waqf official’s report of 1969 recognising the hereditary role of Sajjada Nasheens, but HC said the official had no authority to decide title.While HC upheld the inclusion of the shrines under waqf, the petitioners were allowed to continue to occupy the residential premises on the land as lessees under applicable waqf rules.End of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideosManipur Erupts Again After Deadly Blast Kills 2 Children; Curfew Imposed, Internet Shutdown’Avoid Military Areas, Stay Indoors’: India Issues Advisory For Indians In Iran As Tensions RiseManipur Erupts Again: Curfew, Internet Shutdown As Violence Returns Over Killing Of Two ChildrenTejas Back In Air After Setbacks, But Reliability And Delays Raise Fresh Questions’Target Of Akhand Bharat’: Pakistan Senator Sounds Alarm Over Growing India-UAE Ties’At The Behest Of Mamata’: BJP MP Nishikant Dubey’s Shocking Claim On Pakistan’s Kolkata ThreatIndia Seeks US Waiver On Chabahar Amid Conflict; Iran Envoy Hints At Key Port Revival After WarBJP Calls Kharge’s ‘Snake’ Remark Dangerous, Alleges Communal ProvocationAssam Passport Row Turns Personal: Himanta Sarma Takes ‘Peda’ Jibe At Pawan Khera, Congress Responds’Pakistan Will Be Divided Into…’: Rajnath Singh’s Strong Response To Khawaja Asif’s Kolkata Threat123PhotostoriesWhy this is the only Indian dish among the 50 Best Bean Dishes in the World5 fun and unusual vacation ideas for the summer holidays in IndiaStep inside Kapil Dev’s Delhi residence that defines understated luxurySimple remedies to attract wealth based on your numberHappy birthday Jackie Chan: ‘Drunken Master’, ‘Police Story’ to ‘Rush Hour’ – The legend’s greatest hitsHeartbroken? 7 inspiring quotes on why this isn’t the end of your storyBrad Pitt, Tom Cruise and more: Hollywood stars who adore Bollywood actors, trends and movies4 non-negotiable rules for a healthy relationshipTamil Nadu’s Buckingham Canal gets Rs 45 crore makeover: Walkways, cycling tracks, Miyawaki forests planned7 career mistakes that stop smart people from growing, and how to fix them123Hot PicksLuka Doncic InjuryUpdated IPL Points TableOil PriceSilver Rate TodayLPG NewsPublic holidays April 2026Bank Holidays AprilTop TrendingRory McilroyBlake LivelyKerala pollsWest Bengal assembly electionEA FC 26 Team of the SeasonKerala ElectionStrait of HormuzIPL Points TableSchool Holidays in AprilKarnataka 2nd PUC Exam Result Date
SRINAGAR: Holding two shrines and their attached properties in Kishtwar district to be waqf, the Jammu and Kashmir high court has ruled, in a case dating back nearly five decades, that petitioners claiming to be hereditary custodians of the mausoleums have no ownership rights. Property titles must be decided on evidence, not based on public history, the court said.“It is clear that it is only in the matters of public history that the court can rely upon appropriate books or documents of reference. Whether a person is or is not holding a title to a particular property cannot be a question of fact of public history,” a single bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar observed in its judgment last week. The petitioners had relied on history books and records in support of their claim.The case, which the court called having a “long-chequered history”, dated back to 1979, when the petitioners approached HC claiming to be ‘Sajjada Nasheens’ or hereditary caretakers of the shrines of Ziarat Farid-ud-Din Sahib and Ziarat Assrar-ud-Din Sahib, and asserting exclusive ownership over the shrines and the properties attached to them. They moved HC after Doda deputy commissioner in 1978 described the shrines as waqf properties.In 1998, a single bench of J&K high court dismissed the plea, and a division bench upheld it in 2003. However, the Supreme Court in 2013 set aside the division bench ruling and remanded the matter for fresh consideration to HC.In his judgment, Justice Sanjay Dhar dwelt upon the history of Kishtwar and the two shrines. Kishtwar was an independent state before its annexation by Maharaja Gulab Singh in 1821. Around 1681, its ruler Raja Kirat Singh converted to Islam.Shah Farid-ud-Din Sahib, who arrived in Kishtwar in the 17th century, and his son Shah Assrar-ud-Din Sahib, were revered saints whose mausoleums became prominent shrines, and still continue to draw a large number of devotees.The petitioners claimed hereditary rights over the shrines, stating that 20 kanals of land had been granted by Kirat Singh to his granddaughter, who was married to one of their ancestors. They argued that the properties, in which they have built houses, were private and not waqf, as no such formal dedication had been made by its owner, Raja Kirat Singh.However, Justice Dhar said: “The petitioners have not placed on record any cogent and convincing material that would rebut the presumption attached to the entries in the ‘jamabandi’ (revenue records). Therefore, it cannot be stated that the petitioners or their ancestors were the owners of the ziarat and the land attached thereto.”On the history books referred to by the petitioners to back their claims, the court said the facts relating to the properties mentioned in those books “cannot be used to prove the title of the petitioners”.The petitioners also cited a waqf official’s report of 1969 recognising the hereditary role of Sajjada Nasheens, but HC said the official had no authority to decide title.While HC upheld the inclusion of the shrines under waqf, the petitioners were allowed to continue to occupy the residential premises on the land as lessees under applicable waqf rules.