JUDGMENT Augustine George Masih, J.:- Through this petition, the petitioner has sought this Court to invoke the powers and exercise revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 83 (9) of the Haryana Wakf Act for setting aside the impugned judgment dated 20.12.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, whereby the suit of the petitioner (plaintiff) was partly decreed with a further prayer to pass any other appropriate order or direction, which this Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. A suit for declaration to the effect that land in dispute measuring 46 kanals 13 marlas comprised in khewat No. 242/226, khatoni No. 269, khasra No. , 31, 32, 33 and 34 situated within the revenue estate of Village Sayed Shahpur, belongs to Patti Sadiq Ali and the same is reserved and is being used as “kabristan”. The kabars of the ancestors of the petitioner also exist in the land comprised in khasra No. 33 and 34. 3. It has been pleaded that the land in dispute is at two places and exists near abadi area of Village Sayed Shahpur. A Teela on a Dargah known as Baba Kher Wala Peer, exists over the land comprising of khasra No. 33 and 34, where the Muslim community worship at the Dargah and offers chaddars. There is a water hut in existence and people visit it in a large number on every Thursday for offering Namaz. Earlier Gram Panchayat was shown as owner of the land in dispute in the revenue records but in the jamabandi for the year 1985-1986, the land was shown to be owned by Shamlat Patti Sadiq Ali vide mutation No. 722 dated 17.11.1986. On the basis of a letter dated 16.11.1973 issued by the State Government, mutation of this land was sanctioned in the name of Punjab Wakf Board. The petitioner is the founder patron of Hazrat Baba Sayed Noordeen Dharmarth Trust Pataudi and he purchased one lac bricks and utilized those bricks to make a pucca passage to reach Dargah. The petitioner has been looking after the land in dispute and monuments for the last four generations. He and his ancestors have been living in Village Shahpur. Earlier entries in khasra girdwari since the year 1951 up to the year 1984 remained in the name of family of the petitioner. The petitioner has been looking after the land in dispute and monuments for the last four generations. He and his ancestors have been living in Village Shahpur. Earlier entries in khasra girdwari since the year 1951 up to the year 1984 remained in the name of family of the petitioner. Initially Punjab Wakf Board and, thereafter, Haryana Wakf Board leased out the land in dispute to other persons. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for a decree for declaration to the effect that land in dispute measuring 46 kanal 13 marlas belongs to Patti Sadiq Ali and is being used as kabristan and that the lease deeds executed by respondent No.1 in favour of respondents No.2 to 5 are illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the petitioner. It has further been prayed that respondents No.2 to 5 be restrained from changing the nature of the suit land with religious place and graveyard to that of agricultural land. 4. The respondents have filed their written statement, wherein the contentions raised by the petitioner have been disputed. On the basis of the pleadings, issues were framed, which read as follows: “1. Whether the land in dispute belonging to Patti Sadiq Ali is kabristan and is ancient Teela Majar Dargah and the same is being maintained, managed and controlled by the plaintiff and Islamic community has a right to worship and to perform religious rights and to sue it as a graveyard? OPP 2. Whether defendant No.1 has no right to lease out the suit property to defendants No.2 to 5 or to other persons and to change the user of the land for agricultural purposes and the lease deeds executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No.2 to 4 dated 21.10.1986 and in favour of defendant No.5 dated 07.06.2003 are illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff? OPP 3. Whether defendant No.1 is liable to frame scheme for proper control, safety, security and maintenance of the suit property and for protection of Dargah graveyard and Majar. OPP 4. Whether the suit is time barred/OPR 5. Relief” 5. Issues No.1 to 3 were taken up together by the court and decided simultaneously. OPP 3. Whether defendant No.1 is liable to frame scheme for proper control, safety, security and maintenance of the suit property and for protection of Dargah graveyard and Majar. OPP 4. Whether the suit is time barred/OPR 5. Relief” 5. Issues No.1 to 3 were taken up together by the court and decided simultaneously. On the basis of the evidence produced on record, the court below came to a conclusion that there existed a Dargah, Samadhi of Peer Baba and a place for offering Namaj in the land comprised in khasra No. 34, which is mentioned in the revenue record as Takia. The evidence further showed that there existed a Darwaja and it is an admitted fact that on every Thursday, a mela is held on the Samadhi of Peer Baba, which is fenced with wires. The land comprised in khasrs Nos. 31 and 32 is under cultivation and respondent No.5 is lease holder measuring 30 kanals. In khasra No. 33, there exists Samadhi of Peer and other monuments. Land measuring 8 kanals 13 marlas comprising khasra No. 34 and land comprised in khasra No. 33 measuring 7 kanal 10 marias, is being used as kabristan. As per the revenue record, land comprised in khasra No. 31 and 32 is also reserved for kabristan but the same is not being used for that purpose for the time being. The total land comprising khasra No. 31 and 32 is thus reserved for future needs for the purpose of kabristan. 6. A finding has, therefore, been recorded that for the time being, as khasra Nos. 31 and 32 are not being used as kabristan, there can be no mistake on the part of respondent No.1 in leasing out the said two khasra numbers to respondent No.5 for cultivation to generate the income of the Haryana Wakf Board, which may be used for religious purposes. Nothing ­has been produced on record, which would show that the Haryana Wakf Board has done any such act, which would reflect upon the intention of the Board to change the user of the land. The purpose, for which the land has been reserved, will not be frustrated by using it for agricultural purposes and since the said land is not being used for the purpose, for which it has been reserved as of now using it for the purpose of generating funds is not illegal. The purpose, for which the land has been reserved, will not be frustrated by using it for agricultural purposes and since the said land is not being used for the purpose, for which it has been reserved as of now using it for the purpose of generating funds is not illegal. A finding has been, thus, recorded that respondent No.1 is not legally competent or entitled to change the user of the land permanently and the same having not been done, there can be no illegality in leasing out the land for agricultural purposes. 7. It is not in dispute that Punjab Wakf Board, on the basis of the Gazette Notification Ex. D1 dated 02.11.1970, became the owner of the suit property and, thereafter, Haryana Wakf Board, being successor of the Punjab Wakf Board, became the owner of the suit property. Although the petitioner has claimed right of ownership, however, in the light of the Notification issued on 02.11.1970 (Ex.D1), the petitioner cannot be declared as owner of the property. Reliance has been placed also on Section 6 of the Wakf Act, 1995, wherein it has been held that after publication of the list of Wakfs, if any question arises whether a particular property, specified as Wakf property under the list, is wakf property or not, the Board or the Mutwlli of the Waif or any person interested therein, may institute a suit in a Tribunal for the decision of the question and decision of the Tribunal in respect of such matters shall be final but this challenge has to be made within a period of one year and, thereafter, the Tribunal shall not entertain such claims/objections after expiry of one year from the date of publication of the list of Wakfs.The suit having not been filed within the time stipulated, it has been held that whole of the land in dispute measuring 46 kanals 13 marlas vests in the Haryana Wakf Board. 8. In respect of land comprised in khasra No. 34 where religious monuments are in existence and weekly fair is organized, it has been held that the petitioner is entitled to hold all these religious functions, which are being performed and managed by the petitioner and prior to him by his fore-fathers. 8. In respect of land comprised in khasra No. 34 where religious monuments are in existence and weekly fair is organized, it has been held that the petitioner is entitled to hold all these religious functions, which are being performed and managed by the petitioner and prior to him by his fore-fathers. It has been held that the continuing management of this Dargah cannot be allowed to be disturbed unless a proper scheme of the Punjab Wakf Board is prepared, which can be prepared as per relevant rules and provisions of law. It has been held that Islamic community and even members of other community have right to perform Ibadat and worship of this religious monument and the persons belonging to Islamic community have right to use the land as graveyard. On the basis of the said observation, Issues No.2 and 3 were decided against the petitioner and issue No.1 was partly decided in favour of the petitioner and partly against the petitioner. Issue No.4 was decided against the respondents and issue No.5 was not pressed during arguments, therefore, the same was decided against the respondents. 9. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the nature of the land could not be changed by the respondents as it is a kabristan, which is the necessity of the Islamic community. He submits that by leasing out the said land, which is not being used as per the findings given by the trial court, for agricultural purpose would amounts to changing the nature of the land, which is not permissible under the law. He submits that the order dated 20.12.2007 passed by the court below, therefore, cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside. 10. This contention of the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted for the simple reason that by leasing out the land, which is not being used as a kabristan would not amounts to changing the nature of the land permanently and it cannot be said that the land, which is being used ­ for agricultural purposes, cannot be, if need be, used for the purpose of kabristan. By leasing out the unused land for the kabristan extra income would be generated, which would ultimately be used for the benefit of the community at large by the Haryana Wakf Board, who is the owner of the land. By leasing out the unused land for the kabristan extra income would be generated, which would ultimately be used for the benefit of the community at large by the Haryana Wakf Board, who is the owner of the land. There is no illegality in the order passed by the court below, which would call for interference by this Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the light of the above, I do not find any merit in this petition and dismiss the same. ----------------