Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1401 (PNJ)

Punjab Wakf Board v. Kashmir Singh

2012-10-05

L.N.MITTAL

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - Defendants Punjab Wakf Board and its Estate Officer have filed this revision petition under Section 83 (9) of the Wakf Act, 1995 (in short – the 1995 Act) assailing judgment and decree dated 14.05.2003 passed by the Wakf Tribunal, Ferozepur, thereby decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs (Kashmir Singh etc.). 2. Plaintiffs alleged that they are owners in possession of the suit land measuring 20 kanals comprised of khasra no.65, having purchased it from its previous owner Mohinder Singh vide sale deed dated 15.01.1991 registered on 17.01.1991 for valuable consideration of Rs.65,000/-. They are also bona fide purchasers of the suit land for valuable consideration. However, suddenly, the suit land was mutated vide mutation no.1167 dated 29.09.1997 in favour of defendant no.1 – Punjab Wakf Board, without even giving opportunity of hearing to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs sought declaration that they are absolute owners in possession of the suit land. They also claimed permanent injunction restraining the defendants from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit land and from alienating the same in any manner. 3. Defendants admitted that plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land and also admitted that the aforesaid mutation has been sanctioned in favour of defendant no.1 – Wakf Board. However, other plaint averments were broadly denied by the defendants. It was pleaded that Mohinder Singh was not owner of the suit land and was not competent to sell the same. The suit land was notified as Wakf property in Gazette of India and the suit land has, therefore, been rightly mutated in favour of defendant no.1 Wakf Board, which is owner thereof. It was alleged that in the years 1984-85 and 1985-86, the suit land was leased out by defendant no.1 to one Sewa Singh, but after his death, plaintiffs are now in illegal possession of the suit land. 4. Learned Wakf Tribunal, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 14.05.2003, has decreed the plaintiffs’ suit. Feeling aggrieved, defendants have filed the instant revision petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 6. Counsel for the petitioners vehemently and repeatedly contended with great emphasis that the suit land was leased out by Wakf Board in the years 1984-85 and 1985-86 to one Sewa Singh. Feeling aggrieved, defendants have filed the instant revision petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 6. Counsel for the petitioners vehemently and repeatedly contended with great emphasis that the suit land was leased out by Wakf Board in the years 1984-85 and 1985-86 to one Sewa Singh. However, all the emphasis on this contention is completely misplaced and the contention is completely meritless and frivolous. There is not even an iota of document on record to depict that defendant no.1 Wakf Board had ever leased out the suit land to anybody. Consequently, merely on the basis of pleading and oral statement, it cannot be said that Wakf Board ever leased out the suit land to anybody. Even otherwise, the question of lease would not be of much relevance because the question of ownership is the core controversy in the lis. 7. As regards ownership, counsel for the petitioners placed emphatic reliance on Gazette Notification dated 03.10.1970 (Ex.D-1), thereby declaring the land as Sunni Wakf being graveyard, under Section 5 (2) Wakf Act, 1954 (in short – the 1954 Act) read with Rule 4 of the Punjab Wakf Rules, 1964. On the basis of this notification, it was contended that Wakf Board is owner of the suit land. 8. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention, but the same cannot be accepted. 9. The suit land earlier stood in the name of one Mahijit Singh, who sold it to Mohinder Singh vide sale deed dated 14.01.1985 (Ex.P-2) and mutation Ex.P-10 regarding the same was sanctioned and accordingly, Mohinder Singh became owner in possession of the suit land. Then, Mohinder Singh sold it further to the plaintiffs vide sale deed dated 15/17.01.1991 (Ex.P-1) and mutation thereof was sanctioned in favour of plaintiffs and they were recorded to be owners in possession of the suit land in jamabandi Ex.P-6 for the year 1995-96 as well as in khasra girdawris Ex.P-8 and Ex.P-9 since the year 1991-92 onwards. The plaintiffs purchased the suit land from Mohinder Singh for valuable consideration. Mohinder Singh was recorded to be owner in possession of the suit land in the revenue record on the basis of sale deed dated 14.01.1985 and mutation Ex.P-10 sanctioned on its basis. Prior to that, Mahijit Singh – vendor of Mohinder Singh was recorded to be owner in possession of the suit land. Mohinder Singh was recorded to be owner in possession of the suit land in the revenue record on the basis of sale deed dated 14.01.1985 and mutation Ex.P-10 sanctioned on its basis. Prior to that, Mahijit Singh – vendor of Mohinder Singh was recorded to be owner in possession of the suit land. In these circumstances, plaintiffs are also proved to be bona fide purchasers of the suit land for valuable consideration. 10. In addition to the aforesaid, defendant no.1 Wakf Board is also not proved to be owner of the suit land. Merely on the basis of notification Ex.D-1, issued under the 1954 Act, it cannot be said that defendant no.1 has become owner of the suit land. There is practically no other evidence to depict Wakf nature of the suit land. The aforesaid notification is not conclusive to prove that the suit land is Wakf property. On the contrary, it is proved that the suit land is not Wakf property. Admittedly, the suit land is being cultivated and is being used for agricultural purposes. Consequently, it cannot be said that the suit land is graveyard or Wakf property, as mentioned in the aforesaid notification. It is also the case of defendants themselves that they had leased out the suit land to one Sewa Singh for agricultural purposes, although Wakf Board has failed to prove the same. However, the fact remains that even according to the defendants’ pleadings, the suit land is being used for agricultural purposes. Consequently, it is not Wakf property. Even otherwise, land measuring 20 kanals i.e. 2½ acres situated in a Village could not be said to be graveyard. Moreover, in a judgment passed by this Court in the case of Punjab Wakf Board, Jalandhar vs. Nagar Panchayat, Shahkot, District Jalandhar, [2011(5) Law Herald (P&H) 672] : reported as 2011 (2) R. C. R. (Civil) 243, it has been laid down that notification issued under Section 5 (2) of the 1954 Act, declaring the property as Wakf property, is not binding on the person recorded to be owner thereof in the revenue record. There has to be evidence either that the suit property was ever dedicated to any Wakf or that the suit property had become Wakf property by long user. In the instant case, there is no such evidence. There has to be evidence either that the suit property was ever dedicated to any Wakf or that the suit property had become Wakf property by long user. In the instant case, there is no such evidence. Consequently, merely on the basis of notification Ex.D-1, it cannot be said that the Wakf Board is owner of the suit land. On the contrary, the said notification has no effect on the ownership of the plaintiffs or their predecessors-in-interest over the suit land. 11. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in this revision petition. Suit of the plaintiffs has been rightly decreed by the Wakf Tribunal. There is no infirmity, much less illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the judgment of the Wakf Tribunal. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.