Civil Revision No. 5628 of 2009 1 ****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5628 of 2009 Date of decision : 25.5.2010 Swaran Singh ....Petitioner Versus Punjab Wakf Board, Chandigarh ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr.Malkeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Jai Bhagwan, Advocate for the respondent. S. D. ANAND, J. The learned Presiding Officer, Wakf Tribunal, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) recorded a fact-based finding to the effect that the property in suit is of wakf character and the petitioner is in possession thereof as a tress passer. That finding came to be recorded as there was complete want of evidence to prove that the petitioner has locus standi to continue in possession thereof. Reliance, in support of the view, is placed upon Abdul Suban Vs, Syed Tharu Hussain 2007(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 210 The solitary contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the controversy which (controversy) could be disposed of only by the Civil Court. Civil Revision No. 5628 of 2009 2 ****** The plea raised is devoid of force. In Abdul Suban Vs, Syed Tharu Hussain 2007(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 210, all that Madras High Court held was that the dispute about the character of wakf property can be decided only by Wakf Tribunal and not by a Civil Court. The Madras High Court, in support of the view, drew sustenance from the provisions of Section 85 of the Wakf Act, 1955. There is no such controversy in the present case. The respondent Board had filed a plea for the possession of the land in suit on an averment that it constitutes wakf property and that the petitioner is a tress passer thereon. That presentation, as already noticed, was upheld by the learned Tribunal on the basis of evidence available on record. The learned counsel has not been able to invite the attention of this Court to any material obtaining on the file to prove that the entry of the petitioner into property in suit was authorised or that his continuation of possession thereupon is authorised in any manner., The petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. May 25, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE