Punjab Wakf Board vs Brij Lal and Others

L.N. Mittal, J.—Plaintiff Punjab Wakf Board has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act, 1995, impugning judgment and decree dated 28.01.2006, passed by Wakf Tribunal (Additional District Judge), Bathinda, thereby dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff-petitioner against respondents-defendants for possession of the suit property. Case of the plaintiff-petitioner is that the land of Khasra No. 2468/2 (96 bighas 16 biswas) is Wakf property vesting in the petitioner-Board. One Mohd. Sadiq was in unauthorized possession of part of the said land. Defendant no. 1-Brij Lal, claiming himself to be President of self-styled Committee, took possession of the said land forcibly from Mohd. Sadiq and constructed ten shops therein. Defendant no. 1 has let out the shops to defendants no. 2 to 9. The said shops are in land of Khasra No. 2468/2. Defendants are in unauthorized possession thereof. Accordingly, plaintiff sought possession of the suit property.

Only defendant no. 1 contested the suit, whereas other defendants were proceeded against ex-parte. Defendant no. 1 contended that Committee Maqbara Meeran Sahib Peer Khana (the Committee) is a registered body and is in actual control of the suit property. The suit is bad for non-joinder of the said Committee, which is necessary party. It was pleaded that suit property, which is in possession of the Committee, is not part of Khasra No. 2468. It was denied that defendants are in unauthorized possession of the suit property. Various other pleas were also raised.

Learned Wakf Tribunal, vide impugned judgment and decree, dismissed the plaintiffs suit holding that the suit property is not proved to be Wakf Property and does not vest in the plaintiff-Board. It was also held that plaintiff has failed to prove that suit property is part of Khasra No. 2468/2. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed this revision petition.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file including file of the Wakf Tribunal, with their assistance.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of notification issued under the Wakf Act, 1954, the suit property is Wakf property and vested in the petitioner-Board. The contention cannot be accepted. Even according to Gazette Notification referred to by counsel for the petitioner, land of Khasra No. 2468/2 was notified to be Wakf property. However, the petitioner has failed to establish that the suit property is part of Khasra No. 2468/2. There is practically no evidence in this regard. Defendant no. 1 specifically pleaded that the suit property is not part of Khasra No. 2468/2. In spite thereof, the plaintiff did not seek demarcation of the suit property to depict that is part of Khasra No. 2468/2. It is thus manifest that suit property is not proved to be part of Khasra No. 2468, as rightly held by the Wakf Tribunal. The said finding, therefore, does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence on record. Consequently, the said finding does not warrant interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act, 1995.

In view of the aforesaid, I am not going into the question as to whether land of Khasra No. 2468/2 is Wakf property or not and has vested in the petitioner-Board or not. Resultantly, I find no merit in this revision petition, which is, therefore, dismissed.