Srinagar: Holding two shrines and their associated properties in Kishtwar district as waqfs, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court has ruled in a nearly five-decade-old case that the petitioners claiming to be hereditary custodians of the tombs have no ownership rights. The court said that ownership of property should be decided on the basis of evidence and not on public history.A single bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar, in its judgment last week, said, “It is clear that it is only in matters of public history that the court can rely on appropriate books or documents of reference. Whether a person has ownership of a particular property or not cannot be a question of fact of public history.” The petitioners had relied on history books and records to support their claim.The case, which the court described as having a “long-checked history”, dates back to 1979, when the petitioners had approached the high court claiming to be the ‘Sajjada Nasheen’ or hereditary caretakers of the shrines of Ziarat Farid-ud-Din Sahib and Ziyarat Asrar-ud-Din Sahib, and claimed exclusive ownership over the shrines and the properties attached to them. In 1978, he moved the High Court after the Deputy Commissioner of Doda declared religious places as Waqf property.In 1998, a single bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court dismissed the petition, and in 2003 a division bench upheld it. However, in 2013 the Supreme Court set aside the division bench’s decision and referred the case to the HC for fresh consideration.In his judgment, Justice Sanjay Dhar highlighted the history of Kishtwar and the two pilgrimage sites. 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 and his son Shah Asrar-ud-din Sahib, who arrived in Kishtwar in the 17th century, were revered saints whose mausoleums became major temples and still attract large numbers of devotees.The petitioners claimed hereditary rights over the shrines, saying that 20 kanals of land had been given by Kirat Singh to his granddaughter, who was married to one of his ancestors. He argued that the properties on which he built the houses were private and not waqf, as no such formal dedication had been made by its owner Raja Kirat Singh.Justice Dhar, however, said: “The petitioners have not placed on record any solid and concrete material to refute the presumption attached to the entries in the ‘Jamabandhi’ (revenue records). Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners or their ancestors were the owners of Ziyarat and the lands adjoining it.”On the history books referred to by the petitioners in support of their claims, the court said that the facts relating to the properties mentioned in those books “cannot be used to prove the ownership of the petitioners”.The petitioners also cited a 1969 report by a Waqf officer recognizing the hereditary role of Sajjada Nasheen, but the HC said the officer had no authority to decide ownership.While the HC upheld the inclusion of religious sites under Waqf, the petitioners were allowed to continue occupying residential premises on the land as lessees under the applicable Waqf rules.