Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 974 (PNJ)

Sat Pal v. Punjab Wakf Board

2012-07-24

L.N.MITTAL

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) - Plaintiff-Sat Pal whose suit has been dismissed by learned Wakf Tribunal, Gurdaspur vide judgment and decree dated 12.11.2010 (Annexure P-3) has filed this civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the said judgment and decree. 2. Case of the plaintiff-petitioner is that plaintiff’s step father Thuru Ram was in possession of the suit land as lessee under defendants-Punjab Wakf Board. On his death, plaintiff along with his mother Bahadur Kaur and step brothers Dalip Kumar and Bhagtu Ram is in possession of the suit land. When defendants threatened to dispossess them forcibly from the suit land, plaintiff filed suit which was decreed restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff and others from the suit land except in due course of law. In the present suit, the plaintiff sought mandatory injunction directing the defendants to transfer the lease of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff from the name of Thuru Ram regarding suit land measuring 9 kanals 19 marlas comprised of khara No.73. 3. Defendants contested the suit and denied the right of the plaintiff to get the lease of the suit land changed in his favour. It was pleaded that the plaintiff along with others is in illegal possession of the suit land and they would be ejected therefrom in due course of law. It was pleaded that Punjab Wakf Board as owner of the suit land gives the Wakf land on lease as per its terms and conditions. The plaintiff can apply for taking the suit land on lease and his application would be decided accordingly. It was pleaded that Wakf Board cannot be directed to lease out the suit land to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is stranger and has no connection with the suit land. Various other pleas were also raised. 4. Learned Wakf Tribunal vide impugned judgment and decree dated 12.11.2010 dismissed the plaintiff’s suit. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed this revision petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner being step son of Thuru Ram who was admittedly lessee of the suit land under the Wakf Board, is entitled to get the lease of the suit land changed in his favour. The contention is completely meritless. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner being step son of Thuru Ram who was admittedly lessee of the suit land under the Wakf Board, is entitled to get the lease of the suit land changed in his favour. The contention is completely meritless. The plaintiff is not even among legal heirs of Thuru Ram. Plaintiff has no right whatsoever to seek direction from the Court to the Wakf Board for transferring the lease of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff. Even if the plaintiff had been one of the legal heirs of Thuru Ram, even then no such direction could be issued to the Wakf Board. On the contrary, as submitted by the Wakf Board in the written statement, the plaintiff has to apply to the Wakf Board to take the suit land on lease if the plaintiff so desires and thereafter the Wakf Board will decide the application of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has no legal or vested right to take the suit land on lease from the Wakf Board nor any such direction can be issued by Wakf Tribunal or Court to the Wakf Board. 7. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no infirmity, much less perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in impugned judgment of the Wakf Tribunal so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is meritless and is accordingly dismissed in limine.