JUDGMENT Mr. Satish Kumar Mittal, J.: - This judgment shall dispose of R.S.A. Nos.1989, 1990 of 1990, 1640, 2207 of 1991, 1691 and 2049 of 1994 in which common questions of facts and law are involved. All these appeals have been filed by the Punjab Wakf Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board’) against the judgments and decree passed by both the Courts below, whereby the suit for possession filed by the Board on the basis of title, has been dismissed. In all these appeals the appellant-Board has filed separate suits against various persons, who are in possession of the land in dispute bearing Khasra No.1335 situated at Patti, District Amritsar, claiming the same as wakf property. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Board filed a suit for possession alleging therein that the Board is owner of the land in dispute which is recorded as ‘Kabristan’ in the revenue record and with regard to that a notification dated 23.4.1983 declaring the same as wakf property was issued under Section 5(2) of the Wakf Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). It has been alleged that the defendants are in illegal possession of the suit land and they are liable to be ejected. 3. The defendants contested the suit on various grounds, including jurisdiction. It was alleged that they are tenants under Mandir Balmik Sabha, Patti, who is owner of the property in suit. It was denied that the suit property is a wakf property. It was alleged that the suit property was never dedicated for burial of dead bodies of muslims nor it was used as such. It was not a muslim grave-yard, rather the property in dispute belongs to Chuhra community of Patti, who earlier used to bury their dead bodies in the disputed khasra number. Regarding notification dated 23.4.1983 issued under Section 5(2) of the Act it was alleged that before issuing the said notification neither any notice was given to the defendants/Mandir Balmik Sabha nor they were heard, therefore, the said notification is not binding on them. 4. On the pleadings of the parties various issues, including ‘whether the property in dispute is a wakf property and vests in Punjab Wakf Board’, were framed. 4. On the pleadings of the parties various issues, including ‘whether the property in dispute is a wakf property and vests in Punjab Wakf Board’, were framed. On issue No.1, it was held that the property in dispute was never used before partition or after partition of the country for the purpose of burial of the dead bodies of Mohammedans. It was further found that the Chuhra community of Patti is in possession of the property in dispute since long as is clear from the revenue record, i.e., 1891-92 Ex.D- 32, 1897-98 Ex.D-31, 1911-12 Ex.D-30, 1938-39 Ex. D-29, 1950-51 Ex. D- 28, and earlier they used to bury the dead bodies in the same. It was further found that the plaintiff did not lead any evidence to show that the property in dispute was ever used as a ‘wakf property’ and it was dedicated to the Muslims. Rather, PW1-Amin Hassan, Rent Controller of the Board, has admitted in the cross-examination that in the suit property there is a Mandir of Balmik and a Mandir of Devi Mata. It has also been held that in the year 1954 a Commissioner was appointed to conduct a survey with regard to wakf property in Punjab, but no such evidence has been brought on record by the plaintiff to show that the disputed khasra number was found to be a wakf property. It has been found that since long the Chuhra community of Patti is in possession of the disputed property and the same is being let out by Mandir Balmik Sabha to different persons. With regard to notification dated 23.4.1983 issued under Section 5(2) of the Act it was held that no notice was ever served to the defendant to present his case, therefore, the said notification is not conclusive to hold the property as a ‘wakf property’ and as such the same is not binding on the defendant. Even the mutation sanctioned on the basis of said notification in favour of the Board is also not binding on the defendant and confer any right or title on the Board. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court while holding that the Board has failed to show its title on the suit property and also failed to prove that the property in dispute was a ‘wakf property’. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court while holding that the Board has failed to show its title on the suit property and also failed to prove that the property in dispute was a ‘wakf property’. It was further held that the possession of the defendants over the property in dispute is not unlawful. 5. The appeal filed by the plaintiff-Board against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed and the aforesaid finding of fact recorded by the trial Court was affirmed. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, I do not find any merit in these appeals. Neither in the memorandum of appeal nor subsequently the appellant has formulated any substantial question of law arising in the facts of these appeals. However, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant argued that in the revenue record the nature of the land in dispute has been clearly mentioned as ‘Kabristan’, and the Kabristan is being used by the Muslims for burying their dead bodies only. Therefore, on the basis of the said entry the Courts below should have held the property in dispute to be a ‘wakf property’ vests in the Board. The learned counsel further argued that in the revenue record in the column of ownership the name of Punjab Wakf Board has been mentioned, whereas in the column of cultivation the names of the tenants or in possession of Chuhra community have been mentioned, therefore, on the basis of those entries, the trial Court should have decreed the suit for possession on the basis of title. However, during the course of arguments it has not been disputed that the said entry of ownership in the revenue record in favour of the Board came on the basis of notification dated 23.4.1983 issued under Section 5(2) of the Act. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents argued that in the present case a finding of fact has been recorded by both the Courts below that the property in dispute is not a wakf property. It was neither dedicated to public wakf nor it was used as ‘Kabristan’ for burial of dead bodies of the Muslims. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents argued that in the present case a finding of fact has been recorded by both the Courts below that the property in dispute is not a wakf property. It was neither dedicated to public wakf nor it was used as ‘Kabristan’ for burial of dead bodies of the Muslims. The said finding of fact has not been challenged by the learned counsel for the appellant and in view of the said finding of fact, the notification dated 23.4.1983 issued by the Board under Section 5(2) of the Act without issuing any notice of hearing to the persons in possession of the land in dispute is not binding on their right. Thus no substantial question of law is involved in these appeals and the same are liable to be dismissed. 8. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that in the present case the suit of the appellant-Board for possession on the basis of title was rightly dismissed by the trial Court as the appellant-Board failed to establish that the title of the land in dispute vests in it. The learned counsel for the appellant very fairly stated that in the present case the finding of fact recorded by the trial Court with regard to nature of the land and possession of the same cannot be controverted as the same is based upon the evidence available on record. Further the finding that the plaintiff has failed to lead any evidence to show that the property in dispute was ever dedicated for public wakf and that it was being used for a long time as ‘Kabristan’ by Muslim community has also not been controverted. Further the finding that the plaintiff has failed to lead any evidence to show that the property in dispute was ever dedicated for public wakf and that it was being used for a long time as ‘Kabristan’ by Muslim community has also not been controverted. Thus, in my view both the Courts below, while recording the aforesaid finding of facts, have rightly come to the conclusion while applying the law laid down in various judgments of this Court in Punjab Wakf Board vs. Joint Development Commissioner, [2008(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2337] : 2008(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 693, Punjab Wakf Board, Jalandhar vs. Nagar Panchayat Shahkot, District Jalandhar, [2011(5) Law Herald (P&H) 672] : 2011(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 243 and Punjab Wakf Board vs. Gram Panchayat, Dakha, Tehsil and District Ludhiana and others, 2012(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 347, wherein it was held that to hold a particular property to be a ‘wakf property’ it is to be proved that the said property was dedicated to public wakf or that the same was being used as ‘wakf property’ for a long time. Until and unless the said evidence is led, a property cannot be held to be a ‘wakf property’. Merely on the basis of the notification dated 23.4.1983 issued by the Board under Section 5(2) of the Act, the property in dispute of a third person cannot be held to be a ‘wakf property’ until and unless proper notice or hearing was given to such person before notifying the said property to be a wakf property under Section 5(2) of the Act. Undisputedly, no such notice or hearing was given to the defendants or Mandir Balmik Sabha, Patti, who was in possession of the suit property, therefore, the trial Court has rightly ignored the said notification and the mutation entered on the basis of said notification, and then came to the conclusion that merely on the basis of the said notification and entry in the revenue record the property in dispute cannot be held to be a wakf property which vests in the Board. Thus, in my view the suit of the plaintiff has been dismissed on the basis of pure finding of fact which could not be assailed in these appeals. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, no substantial question of law is involved in these appeals. 9. Hence, the appeals are dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————