Parshotam Lal and others vs Punjab Wakf Board and another

L.N. Mittal, J.—Defendants no. 1, 3 and 4 have filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995 assailing judgment and decree dated 21.9.2010 Annexures P/3 and P/4 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar as Wakf Tribunal, thereby decreeing the suit filed by respondent no. 1/plaintiff Punjab Wakf Board against petitioners and respondent no. 2 Karnail Singh as defendants. I need not go into detailed facts of the case in view of limited question of jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal involved in the revision petition. The plaintiff filed suit alleging that the suit property is Kabarstan (graveyard) and plaintiff is owner thereof. The defendants threatened to encroach upon the suit land. The plaintiff sought to injunct the defendants from doing so. Injunction was also claimed restraining the defendants from preventing Muslims from burying the dead bodies in the suit land.

Defendants in the written statement pleaded that the suit land is Khangah of Baba Naugajja Peer since prior to partition of the country and is not used as graveyard. Various other pleas were also raised.

Learned Wakf Tribunal vide judgment and decree dated 21.9.2010 has decreed the plaintiff''s suit. Feeling aggrieved, defendants no. 1, 3 and 4 have filed this revision petition to assail judgment and decree passed by the Wakf Tribunal.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

Counsel for the petitioners contended that on the date of framing of issues i.e. on 8.9.2009, the defendants made statement before the Wakf Tribunal admitting the plaintiff Wakf Board to be owner of the suit property and therefore, Wakf Tribunal was left with no jurisdiction to try the suit for permanent injunction. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Gobindram (dead) through Lrs. Vs. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf,

Counsel for respondent no. 1 contended that since the defendants were disputing the right of Muslims to bury the dead bodies in the suit land which is graveyard, Wakf Tribunal has jurisdiction to try the suit. It was also submitted that since defendants were not lessees of the Wakf Board, judgment in the case of Ramesh Gobindram (supra) is not applicable. On the other hand, counsel for respondent no. 1 relied on judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Board of Wakf, West Bengal Vs. Anis Fatma Begum and Another, .

I have carefully considered the matter.

The defendants in their written statement did not deny ownership of the plaintiff Wakf Board over the suit land. On the contrary, by making statement on 8.9.2009, the defendants specifically and expressly admitted the plaintiff Wakf Board to be owner of the suit property. In view thereof, there was no dispute regarding the vesting of the suit property in the plaintiff Wakf Board. Consequently, Wakf Tribunal was left with no jurisdiction to try the suit for permanent injunction, in view of judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Gobindram (supra). Proposition of law laid down in the said judgment is not restricted to suit for eviction of tenant only. On the other hand, broad proposition of law has been laid down that if the dispute is regarding nature of the suit land being Wakf property vesting in the Wakf Board, the Wakf Tribunal has jurisdiction to try the suit, but if there is no dispute regarding nature of the Wakf property, then the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try the suit for other reliefs. Consequently, in the instant case, when ownership of the plaintiff Wakf Board on the suit property was specifically and expressly admitted by the defendants, the Wakf Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to try the suit for permanent injunction. Suit for the said relief had, therefore, to be filed in ordinary civil court. Judgment in the case of Anis Fatma Begum (supra) relied on by counsel for respondent no. 1-plaintiff is completely distinguishable on facts. In that case, the dispute related to Wakf estate created by a registered deed of Wakf and the nature of the property being Wakf was being disputed.

For the reasons aforesaid, I find that the Wakf Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to try the suit because the defendants admitted the plaintiff Wakf Board to be owner of the suit land. Resultantly, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Wakf Tribunal are set aside. Plaint filed by respondent no. 1-plaintiff before the Wakf Tribunal is ordered to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation in court of competent jurisdiction.

Respondent no. 1-plaintiff is directed to appear before the Wakf Tribunal on 11.19.2013 to receive back the plaint. Civil miscellaneous application, if any pending, is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.