Civil Revision No.254 of 2007 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No.254 of 2007 Date of Decision: 21.7.2010 Sawinder Singh and Another …Petitioners Versus Punjab Wakf Board …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. G.S. Nagra, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Dinesh Goel, Advocate for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The petitioners filed a suit for declaration under Section 45 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, for making correction in the entries in column No. 5 of jamabandi for the year 1998-99. It was further prayed that the names of respondents to the suit be deleted and the petitioners/plaintiffs be declared as owners in possession of 4/5th share of khasra No. 87, situated in village Ajnala, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar. This suit was transferred by the Civil Court under Section 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995, to the Wakf Tribunal, Amritsar, constituted thereunder. It will be apposite here to reproduce the head note of the suit:- “...Suit for declaration under Section 45 of the Civil Revision No.254 of 2007 2 Punjab Land Revenue Act for correction of jamabandi for the year 1998-99 in Khata No. 5and to delete the name of defendant and to effect that the plaintiffs are owners in possession of 4/5 share in the land measuring 0 K 3 Marlas bearing Khasra No. 87 Khata Khatoni No. 361/781 as entered in the jamabandi for the year 1998-99 situated at village Ajnala Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar and for mandatory injunction directing the revenue authorities to make necessary correction in the revenue records of rights”. The Presiding Officer, Wakf Tribunal, Amritsar, had framed issue Nos.1 and 2, which read as under:- “1) Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of 4/5 share in the disputed land? OPP 2) Whether the entries in jamabandi for the year 1989 are liable to be corrected as alleged? OPP” On issue No.1, the following categoric findings have been returned by the Wakf Tribunal, Amritsar, vide its judgment dated 3.10.2006:- “...8. Plaintiffs alleged sale deed in favour of their father attested copy of which is Ex.P3. Ex.P1 sale deed dated 14.6.1979 in favour of vendors of father of the plaintiffs has also been led in evidence Civil Revision No.254 of 2007 3 of plaintiff. Settled principle of law is that a person cannot transfer by way of alienating more than he is holding. When Ranjit Kumari, Vijay Kumar and Rakesh Kumar Handa could not be shown as to how they acquired ownership over suit property which is belonging to Islamic people “Gair Mumkin Kabristan” they cannot be held owners in possession of suit land at any occasion. Ex.P7 copy of judgment dated 28.2.1983 in which Punjab Wakf Board was not party has no force to adversely affect the rights of defendant. Similarly Ex.P8 copy of decree sheet dated 28.2.1983 is of no avail to adversely affect rights of defendant. 9. Ex.4 is attested copy of Gazette Notification its perusal shows that land comprised of Khasra No. 87(0-13) alongwith other khasra number grave yard. Such notification published by Government has its legal force. Documentary evidence cannot be over ruled by oral evidence, therefore, statements of witnesses of plaintiffs are of no avail to overrule such position of documentary evidence, that suit land is gair mumkin kabristan. In view of section 88 of Wakf Act, 1995 notification copy of which is Ex.D4 cannot be challenged. Apart from this, plaintiffs did not challenge such notification of which Ex.D4 is copy . For filing suit against Civil Revision No.254 of 2007 4 Punjab Wakf Board there is necessity of prior service of notice U/s 89 of the Wakf Act, 1995 but the plaintiffs did not serve any notice before filing suit. Suit of plaintiffs being hit by section 88 and 89 therefore, the plaintiffs are liable to be non suited due to operation of section 88 and 89 of the Wakf Act, 1995. 10. When nature of suit property is gair mumkin kabristan it is belonging to Islamic people, plaintiffs or their predecessors cannot be held owners of such suit property which is public property belonging to Islamic people. Plaintiffs never came into possession of suit property. Plaintiffs could not show how they came into possession of suit property under reorganization of law. Plaintiffs badly failed to prove their ownership and possession over suit property”. On issue no.2, it was observed that the Wakf Tribunal, Amritsar, has no jurisdiction to order correction of entries in jamabandi. A finding has been returned that the petitioners cannot be held owners in possession of the suit land. Issue No.1 was decided against the plaintiffs/petitioners, otherwise on merits, no direction could be given to the authorities to carry out correction in the jamabandi. Therefore, only qua issue No.2, it has been stated that the Wakf Tribunal has no jurisdiction. For the reasons stated in paragraph Nos. 8 to 10 of the Civil Revision No.254 of 2007 5 impugned judgment, the relief sought cannot be granted to the petitioners, as no direction can be issued to the revenue authorities to make correction in record of rights as it has been rightly held that the petitioners are not owners in possession. Hence, there is no merit in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge July 21, 2010 “DK”