C.R. No. 1092 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 1092 of 2009 Date of Decision: 26.9.2011 Rameshwar @ Rameshwar Dutt ....Petitioner. Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Paramjit Batta, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Harpinder Singh, Advocate for Mr. Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. Sanjay Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No.3. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. In this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 19.1.2009 passed by the Tribunal constituted under the Wakf Act, 1995 (in short “the Wakf Tribunal”). 2. Put shortly, the facts necessary for adjudication of the present revision petition are that the plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants-respondents from interfering in his peaceful possession of the land measuring 4 kanals 19 marlas situated in Jahanaar Aara Bagh, Jhajjar and not to dispossess C.R. No. 1092 of 2009 -2- him forcibly except in due course of law. Defendant-respondent No.2 filed a written statement whereas defendant No.1 adopted the said written statement. Defendant No.3 filed its separate written statement. It was pleaded by defendants No.1 and 2 that the suit property was given on lease vide lease deed dated 1.8.1970 at the rate of Rs.48/- per month for 11 months only and that the plaintiff had not paid the lease money after a period of 11 months, therefore, the tenancy stood automatically terminated. Defendant No.3 in its reply pleaded that since the plaintiff did not pay the rent to defendant No.2, therefore, the suit property was leased out in its favour from the year 1977. It was further pleaded that defendant No.3 had developed the leased area as children park, open theater and also library for public interest. The Wakf Tribunal vide judgment and decree dated 19.1.2009 dismissed the suit holding that the allotment of the plaintiff was cancelled and the suit property was allotted to defendant-respondent No.3. Hence, the present revision petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. On September 14, 2011, the case was adjourned on the request of the counsel for the petitioner as according to learned counsel for respondent No.2, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramesh Gobind Ram (Dead) through LRs v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf, (2010) 8 SCC 726, the Wakf Tribunal had no jurisdiction and, therefore, the suit was not maintainable. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not dispute that in view of the decision in Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf's case (supra), the jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal was barred and in such cases only C.R. No. 1092 of 2009 -3- the Civil Court had the jurisdiction. He submitted that the plaint/suit decided by the Wakf Tribunal constituted under the Wakf Act, 1995 may be returned after setting aside the judgment passed by the Tribunal. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 was unable to controvert the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, the present revision petition is allowed and the judgment and decree dated 19.1.2009 passed by the Wakf Tribunal is set aside. The plaint be returned to the petitioner for presenting before the court of competent jurisdiction. September 26, 2011 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE