Punjab Wakf Board vs Gurdev Singh

Jaswant Singh, J.—Vide this common order both the aforesaid Civil Revisions are being disposed of as the same involves common question of law and the only difference is the description of the property For the sake of convenience facts are being taken from CR No 7319 of 2013

Plaintiff/Petitioner Punjab Wakf Board is in revision under Article 227 of the Constitution aggrieved against the judgment dated 21.09.2013 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Wakf Board Tribunal, Bathinda whereby its suit for declaration, possession and permanent injunction has been dismissed

Punjab Wakf Board has claimed ownership and possession of the property in question on the basis of a gazette notification dated 7.8.1971 and has alleged that the suit property forms part of the Khasra number as mentioned in the gazette notification Thus, possession has been sought and also declaration that the sale deed executed by defendant no. 2m favour of defendant No. 1 is also illegal, null and void as the property belongs to Punjab Wakf Board

Upon notice, averments made in the plaint were denied and it was stated that the property does not belong to Wakf Board and the description of the property as mentioned in the plaint does not match with the description of the property as alleged by the plaintiff board in the gazette notification Remaining averments were derided and prayer was made for dismissal of the suit.

From the pleadings of the parties issues were framed Both sides led evidence in support of their respective clams and after appreciating their evidence learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Wakf Board Tribunal, Bathinda dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff/petitioner. Hence the present revision.

I have heard learned Counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner and have also gone through the case file carefully with his able assistance.

Learned Counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner has argued that the learned Tribunal has committed grave illegality by dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff board on the ground that notification does not confer any title. It has been further argued that the notification issued by the Government of India itself is a conclusive proof to show that the property has been declared to be that of Wakf Board and no further proof is required. It has further been argued that even the defendant''s witnesses have admitted that the suit property is situated in Hazi Rattan and even the documentary evidence produced by the defendants clearly proves that the suit property is situated in Hazi Rattan and, therefore, on these admissions as well, it is proved that the property is Wakf property. It has been also argued that there is no evidence on record that the defendants/respondents are the owners of the property, as there is no document except the house tax registers to show that the defendants/respondents were the owners of the property in question. Thus, it has been argued that when there is no authentic document to confer the title upon defendants, then the sale deeds executed by defendants amongst themselves are illegal, null and void

After hearing learned Counsel for the appellant and perusing the paper book, this Court is of the considered view that the present petitions are devoid of any merit and same deserves to be dismissed.

In the present case it is not in dispute that the plaintiff has mainly relied upon gazette notification dated 7.8.1971 (Ex. P-6) vide which the list of Wakf existing properties in composite Punjab State was declared. No doubt, this gazette notification contains entry no. 250 relating to agricultural land including Khasra No. 76//2/1 min. This notification, by no stretch of imagination can be binding upon the defendants because it is settled position of law that the notification issued u/s 5 Sub Section 2 of the Wakf Act, 1995 is not binding upon the third party, until and unless objections were invited from the said affected third party. Admittedly, no such objections were invited at the time of issuance of notification. In such a situation, Wakf Board is required to prove the nature of property to be a Wakf by way of independent evidence. However, the board has miserably failed to produce any evidence on record to show that the suit property is a Wakf property or had ever become an evacuee property to come under the definition of Wakf. The alleged admissions referred to by the learned Counsel for the petitioner does not support his case at all because in the absence of any concrete evidence, it cannot be said that the property in question is a Wakf property. Merely referring to the property as Hazi Rattan does not mean the property is Wakf property.

Not only this, it is apparent from the record that the plaintiff/petitioner was not able to link the suit property with the property mentioned in the gazette notification.

As far as the challenge to the sale deeds executed inter se the defendants by the plaintiff/petitioner is concerned, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the findings of the learned Tribunal, because when the plaintiff has failed to prove his locus to file the present suit, then it does not have any standi to challenge the sale deeds executed inter se the defendants. Only the actual owner can challenge the sale deeds executed for his property. A stranger to sale deed cannot question the legality or otherwise of the title document. In view of the above, finding no merit in both the aforesaid civil revisions, the same are hereby dismissed.