Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J. 1. Prayer in the CM is for placing on record Annexures P-1 to P-3 and for exemption from filing certified copies thereof. Allowed, as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions. In view of the circumstances explained in the CM, Annexures P-1 to P-3 are taken on record. Main case 2. Judgment and decree dated 12.3.2014 passed by the Tribunal Wakf Act, Ludhiana under The Waqf Act, 1995, whereby, decreeing the suit of the Punjab Wakf Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board), against the defendants, petitioners herein, whereby declaring the Board to be the owner, the petitioner-defendants have been called upon to pay ` 42,000/- as mesne profits, are under challenge in this revision petition preferred by the defendants, petitioners herein. 3. The petitioner-defendants have claimed that they are owners in possession of the suit land as proprietors of the village and adjudication by the Tribunal in favour of the respondent-Board is not valid in law. Citing Punjab Wakf Board v. Kartar Singh, 1987 PLJ 95, Punjab Wakf Board, Jalandhar v. Nagar Panchayat Shahkot, 2011 (2) RCR (Civil) 243 and Karnataka Boad of Wakf v. Anjuman-E-Ismail Madris-Un-Niswan, 1999 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 639: JT 1999 (5) SC 573, it is urged that gazette notification in favour of the Punjab Wakf Board by itself is not sufficient to prove its ownership and dedication of property for a purpose recognized by the Muslim Law as pious or religious or charitable, is to be established. 4. Citing Parkash Singh and others v. Joint Development Commissioner, Punjab and others, 2014 (2) RCR (Civil) 721, it is claimed that the land is Jumla Mushtarka Malkan and continues to be in their possession as owners. 5. With due deference to the law laid down in these authorities, it may be mentioned that stand of the petitioner-defendants before the Tribunal exactly was the same as has now been projected before this Court. This aspect has already been dealt with elaborately by the Tribunal, which came to a firm finding thereafter that there was absolutely no evidence produced by the defendants to prove as to how they or their predecessors-interest were proprietors of the village and claim ownership of the property in dispute. The Tribunal had also come to definite conclusion that entry in favour of Mushtarka Malkan had also remained unexplained by the defendants and was erroneous. 6. The Tribunal had also come to definite conclusion that entry in favour of Mushtarka Malkan had also remained unexplained by the defendants and was erroneous. 6. It is further to be noticed that facts and circumstances of the case in hand are entirely different from the circumstances of the authorities cited by the petitioners. It is a conceded fact by the petitioners that earlier Major Singh predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners and of respondent-defendant No. 2, was in possession of the land in dispute on lease under the respondent-Board. He continued paying the lease amount to the Board in terms of Pattanama (Annexure P-12) executed by him. After his death, the petitioners and respondent No. 2 came in possession of the land stepping into his shoes. Petitioner Paramjit Singh, while appearing as DW 1 before the Tribunal, admitting pattanama (Annexure P-12) in favor of his father Major Singh, had also admitted that payment of lease amount used to be made regularly to the Board and property in litigation was the same which was earlier on lease with his father Major Singh. Petitioner Paramjit Singh appearing as DW1 has also on his own account admitted the respondent-Board to be owner of the property in dispute and had conceded claim of the said Board showing his readiness to deposit the lease amount. 7. It is also not disputed by petitioner Paramjit Singh DW that earlier even his father Major Singh had filed a suit against the respondent-Board, which had been dismissed as withdrawn on 11.3.2003 (Annexure P-19). When there is clear admission of ownership of the Board and there is further admission that Major Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners and respondent No. 2, was in possession of the land as lessee of the Board, there cannot be any withdrawal from such clear cut admission made by the petitioner-defendants. At this stage, reference may be made to Dalwinder Singh v. Punjab Wakf Board, 2014 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 1044 : 2013(4) Law Herald (P&H) 2898. At this stage, reference may be made to Dalwinder Singh v. Punjab Wakf Board, 2014 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 1044 : 2013(4) Law Herald (P&H) 2898. Since in the previously filed suit by Major Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, he had admitted ownership of the respondent-plaintiff Board and even in the present litigation, there is clear admission made by Paramjit Singh DW 1, appearing for the petitioners-defendants and DW Mohinder Singh appearing for them, has also not been able to deny ownership of the Board, there is no factual or legal plea which enures for the benefit of the petitioner-defendants or respondent No. 2. 8. Further observations of the lower court in para 23 of the impugned order with approval, are reproduced as below:- "23. DW 1 Paramjit Singh, in his cross examination has admitted that Major Singh, his father, after his death delivered possession of the property in dispute to him. He also admitted that though he is in possession of the suit property, he is not paying any lease money to the Punjab Wakf Board, meaning thereby that his possession over the property in dispute is illegal, unauthorized and unwarranted." When possession of the petitioner-defendants of the land in suit has now been held to be illegal and unauthorized, the petitioner-defendants have rightly been called upon to pay mesne profits @ ` 700/- per canal per annum, totaling ` 42,000/- which they were required to pay within two months. Non-payment of mesne profits within two months was to incur further liability of interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the suit till realization. No ground for interference in the impugned judgment and decree is made out. Dismissed.