Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1421 (PNJ)

Balwinder Kumar v. Naresh Saini

2012-10-08

L.N.MITTAL

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, plaintiff Balwinder Kumar has assailed order judgment and decree dated 08.12.2010 passed by Additional District Judge, Panchkula as Wakf Tribunal under the Wakf Act, 1995 (in short the ‘Act’), thereby dismissing plaintiff’s suit. 2. Plaintiff claimed that Prabhu Dayal father of plaintiff and defendant No.1 had taken the disputed plot on lease from defendant No.2 Haryana Wakf Board for 99 years in the year 1987 and constructed house thereon. Prabhu Dayal has since died. Plaintiff claimed lease hold rights in half share in the suit property. 3. Defendant No.1 while admitting that their father had taken the suit plot on lease from defendant No.2 and had constructed the house thereon pleaded that the property has now been leased out in favour of defendant No.1 by defendant No.2. Various other pleas were also raised. 4. Defendant No.2 also controverted the averments of the plaintiff. 5. Learned Wakf Tribunal vide impugned judgment and decree dated 08.12.2010 has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff who has, therefore, filed this revision petition to challenge the said judgment and decree. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 7. Counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner contended that Wakf Tribunal had no jurisdiction to try the suit as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Gobindram (dead) through LRs versus Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf, [2010(5) Law Herald (SC) 3697] : 2010(2) RCR (Rent) 266. 8. The aforesaid contention of counsel for the petitioner has not been countered by any meaningful argument by counsel for respondents. It is undisputed that the disputed plot is Wakf property vesting in defendant No.2- Wakf Board. Consequently jurisdiction to determine rights of plaintiff and defendant No.1 regarding lease of the disputed plot vests in Civil Court and not in Wakf Tribunal under the Act. This view finds support from judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Remesh Gobindram (supra). Since there is inherent lack of jurisdiction in the Wakf Tribunal, the impugned judgment and decree of the Wakf Tribunal have to be set aside. 9. Accordingly the instant revision petition is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree of the Wakf Tribunal are set aside. Since there is inherent lack of jurisdiction in the Wakf Tribunal, the impugned judgment and decree of the Wakf Tribunal have to be set aside. 9. Accordingly the instant revision petition is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree of the Wakf Tribunal are set aside. The matter is remanded to District Judge, Panchkula who shall assign the suit to Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for adjudication in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before learned District Judge, Panchkula on 09.11.2012.