47 Years Later, Kishtwar Shrine Dispute Settled; Jammu Kashmir High Court Declares Properties as Wakaf 

47 Years Later, Kishtwar Shrine Dispute Settled; High Court Declares Properties as Wakaf 

JAMMU: Bringing closure to a dispute that has traversed courts for nearly half a century, the High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh has ruled that the properties attached to the revered Ziarat Farid-ud-Din Sahib and Ziarat AssrarudDin Sahib in Kishtwar are Wakaf properties, dismissing claims of hereditary ownership by families who had long managed the shrines.

The judgment, delivered by Justice Sanjay Dhar on April 2, 2026, weaves together centuries of history with decades of litigation to settle a question that has persisted since 1979, when the petitioners first approached the court claiming exclusive rights over the shrines, their management, and the offerings made by devotees. Their claim, anchored in assertions of hereditary succession as Sajjada Nasheens, had been rejected by the High Court in 1998 and again by a Division Bench in 2003, before the Supreme Court of India intervened in 2013, setting aside earlier rulings and directing a fresh consideration of the matter.

Pension Can Be Used to Recover Loan Dues After Credit, Rules Jammu Kashmir High Court

In revisiting the dispute, the High Court went beyond the immediate claims to reconstruct the genesis of the shrines, situating them within the historical landscape of Kishtwar when it was an independent principality. The court records that Shah Farid-ud-Din Sahib, a Sufi saint, is believed to have arrived in Kashmir around 1664 and lived a long life, passing away in 1725.

His son, Shah Assrar-ud-Din Sahib, also revered as a saint, is recorded to have died earlier, in 1685. Over time, two separate mausoleums were erected over their graves, giving rise to the two ziarats that have since evolved into important centres of spiritual and social life in the region. “Urs of Shah Assrar-ud-Din Sahib is a public holiday for the districts of Kishtwar, Doda and Ramban on account of reverence for the two saints, which is being paid to them by the people of these districts,” the order reads.

The judgment also notes the broader historical context in which these developments took place, including the reported conversion of the then ruler of Kishtwar, Raja Kirat Singh, to Islam in the late 17th century. This transformation, the court observed, formed part of the narrative advanced by the respondents to counter the petitioners’ argument that a non-Muslim ruler could not have created a Wakaf. However, the court ultimately found that such a question was not determinative in light of the doctrine it applied.

What emerged as central to the court’s reasoning was the concept of “Wakaf by user,” a principle under Muslim law that recognises religious endowments based on long and continuous public use for pious purposes. The court observed that institutions such as dargahs, mausoleums and shrines inherently fall within this category, irrespective of whether a formal act of dedication can be traced. Referring to the statutory definition, the court held that the very character of the ziarats, as mausoleums visited by the public for religious purposes over centuries, was sufficient to bring them within the ambit of Wakaf.

In a significant observation, the court pointed out that even the material relied upon by the petitioners described the sites as rauza, a term explicitly included within the statutory definition of Wakaf. This, the court held, undermined the petitioners’ own argument that the properties were private in nature.

The petitioners had sought to build their case on multiple grounds, including a 1969 report prepared by a Special Officer under earlier Wakaf legislation, which had noted that the shrines were being managed by hereditary custodians and recommended that they remain outside the purview of Wakaf administration.

They argued that the properties in question could not be treated as belonging to the shrines, asserting that erstwhile rulers Raja Kirat Singh, Teg Singh and Zorawar Singh had executed pattas in favour of their ancestors, thereby conferring proprietary rights. They also contended that a khilafatnama (settlement deed) executed by Shah Akhyar Sahib clearly established that ownership of the land had been vested in their predecessors, on which they had subsequently constructed residential houses, and therefore, the properties could not be classified or declared as Wakaf.

The court, however, subjected this report to scrutiny and found that it never attained legal finality. It observed that the report was neither accepted by the government nor published in the official gazette, a statutory requirement for it to acquire binding force.

Besides, the court held that the observations in the report went beyond the officer’s mandate, which was limited to identifying Wakaf properties, not to determining their administrative structure or ownership.

The judgment also addresses the petitioners’ reliance on historical texts, royal decrees and alleged grants said to have been made in favour of their ancestors. While acknowledging the antiquity of the material placed on record, the court drew a clear distinction between historical narrative and legal proof of title. It held that references in books of history, even if authored by reputed scholars, cannot be treated as evidence of ownership in a court of law. Questions relating to private title, the court observed, do not fall within the domain of “public history” and therefore cannot be established through such sources.

Instead, the court turned to revenue records spanning several decades, which consistently recorded the ownership of the land in the name of the shrines themselves. While reiterating that entries in the Record of Rights are not conclusive proof of title, the court described them as strong and reliable evidence, particularly in the absence of any convincing material to the contrary. The petitioners, it noted, had failed to produce credible documentation capable of rebutting this presumption.

The court also examined the process through which the properties were formally declared as Wakaf in 1979 following an inquiry by a Special Officer under the Jammu and Kashmir Wakaf Act, 1978, and the subsequent dismissal of the petitioners’ appeal by the competent authority in 1982.

Rejecting the contention that the inquiry was conducted without affording an opportunity of hearing, the court found that the petitioners’ claims had been duly noted and considered. It further observed that even if any procedural deficiency had occurred at the initial stage, the petitioners were given a full opportunity to present their case before the appellate authority, which passed a detailed and reasoned order.

In doing so, the court reiterated the limited scope of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, emphasising that it does not sit as an appellate forum over findings of fact recorded by quasi-judicial authorities. Interference, it noted, is warranted only in cases of jurisdictional error, violation of natural justice or manifest illegality, none of which, it found, were established in the present case.

While dismissing the petitioners’ claim to ownership and management, the court did grant them limited relief. It allowed them to continue occupying residential structures constructed on the land attached to the shrines, but strictly in the capacity of lessees under the Wakaf framework, in accordance with earlier directions that had attained finality. At the same time, it noted that any claim to a share in offerings made at the shrines had already been set aside in prior proceedings and did not survive.

A connected petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Jammu and Kashmir Wakaf Acts of 1978 and 2001 was also dismissed, the court observing that the issue had become academic in view of subsequent legal developments following the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, under which the earlier laws stand repealed and the central Wakaf law has been extended to the Union Territory.

The ruling thus brings to an end a dispute that has moved through multiple judicial forums over decades, while also clarifying the legal position governing religious endowments rooted in long-standing public use. By anchoring its findings in both historical context and statutory interpretation, the High Court has affirmed that the enduring religious character of the Kishtwar shrines defines their legal identity, placing them firmly within the framework of Wakaf and beyond the realm of private inheritance.

Senior Advocate Altaf Haqani, appearing for the petitioners along with Advocate Aasif Wani, led the challenge to the Wakaf status of the shrines, advancing arguments on hereditary rights, historical grants and alleged procedural lapses in the inquiry process. On the opposing side, Senior Advocate P. N. Raina, assisted by Advocates J.A. Hamal, A.A. Hamal and Ayjaz Lone, represented the respondents, defending the classification of the properties as Wakaf and supporting the findings of the Special Officer and the appellate authority.