Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1553 (PNJ)

Mohinder Singh v. Punjab Wakf Board

2012-10-31

A.N.JINDAL

body2012
JUDGMENT A.N. JINDAL, J. (Oral) This petition assails the order dated 16.12.2009, vide which the suit filed by the Punjab Wakf Board-respondent No.1 has been decreed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner is not the owner of land bearing Khasra No. 37/1 over which Khabba is situated. However, he is concerned with his own house which is not part of Khasra No. 37/1 (3-2). He wants to protect his possession over the said house. The specific case of the petitioner is that the respondent-Board is not owner in possession of the property in dispute i.e. Khasra No. 37/1 (3-2) and he is in possession of the same and the site in dispute is common land of village Jhamerhi and there is a dargah of Baba Guli Shah situated over the suit property. The residents of village and others used to pay homage at this place. The plaintiff-Board is not the owner of this dargah as the same is being managed by the members of the village jointly since 2008. Heard. No dispute has been raised about the existence of Dargah and with regard to the fact that the same is being managed by respectable members of the village community. The petitioner in his written statement has not claimed if he is in possession of the site in dispute. Rather he has pleaded that the property in dispute is in possession of the Club established by the villagers. Learned counsel for the respondent-Board has also urged that the present revision is not maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Board of Wakf West Bengal Vs. Anis Fatma Begum and another 2011 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 303, wherein it has been held that any party who wishes to raise any dispute or matter relating to wakf or wakf property, the Wakf Tribunal would have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit and civil court is not the forum. There is no denial of the fact that property cannot be said to have vested in the plaintiff Board (respondent) on the basis of notification Ex. There is no denial of the fact that property cannot be said to have vested in the plaintiff Board (respondent) on the basis of notification Ex. P-2 issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub Section (2) of Section 5 of the Wakf Act, 1954 as relied upon by the respondent-Board and it cannot also be lost sight of the fact that the suit property is Khangah of Baba Guli Shah and is in existence since time immemorial. In the jamabandi Ex. RW1/A, the total area of the Khangah is shown as 12K-8M. In the ownership column, besides Khangah Guli Shah, the ownership and possession of Haqdaran Shamlat Baees hissa is entered, but in the later jamabandies Ex. P-3, P-6, P-7, P-8 and P-9, specific area of Khankah is recorded as 3K-2M. Therefore, in view of the jamabandies and the notification Ex. P-2, it can be said without doubt that the respondent-Bord is the owner of the suit property. The possession of Bahadur Ali, Bhola and Bhag is recorded in the said jamabandi as lessee under the respondent-Board since 1988-89 onwards. Mohinder Singh-defendant has admitted categorically that he had earlier applied for lease of the said property, vide his application Ex. PX. He has also admitted that the sui for permanent injunction filed by him earlier was dismissed vide order Ex. P-10. The Club in question came into existence only in 1990. Though it is registered body, yet the respectables of the village have control over the management and maintenance of Dargah Baba Guli Shah and the Club has nothing to do with the area around it and from the name of the Club, which is “Baba Guli Shah Welfare and Sports Club” it appears that the Club was a registered a registered Society for the welfare of the sports. Mohinder Singh is claiming possession on the ground that the doors of his house are opening towards the suit property and he has installed an electric meter therein which are hardly sufficient to prove his possession. On the contrary, it is proved by enormous oral as well as documentary evidence that the respondent-Board is in possession of the suit property through its lessee. Otherwise also, Mohinder Singh-defendant would not have moved the application Ex. PX to have 8 marla out of the suit property on lease from the respondent-Board. On the contrary, it is proved by enormous oral as well as documentary evidence that the respondent-Board is in possession of the suit property through its lessee. Otherwise also, Mohinder Singh-defendant would not have moved the application Ex. PX to have 8 marla out of the suit property on lease from the respondent-Board. No cogent and reliable evidence is forthcoming from the Club even in support of its possession. In such a situation the move of the petitioner to encroach upon the suit property in question by hook or crook is proved on record. Otherwise also, the witnesses examined by the petitioner have categorically admitted the ownership of the suit property of the respondent-Board straightway and through the kankah, which is in existence there for the time immemorial. The position in this respect stands further fortified by the revenue record and the notification Ex. P-2. No merits. Dismissed.