Civil Revision No. 850 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 850 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : August 16, 2010 Punjab Wakf Board ....Petitioner versus Nagar Panchayat, Shahkot ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Denesh Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Amit Singh, Advocate, for the respondent Mr. Jayender S. Chandail, Advocate for applicant Mohan Lal L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Punjab Wakf Board has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 83(9) of Wakf Act, 1995 challenging judgment dated 1.12.2008 passed by learned Additional District Judge-cum-Wakf Tribunal, Jalandhar thereby dismissing civil suit No. 13/1998 which was instituted by petitioner Punjab Wakf Board against respondent Nagar Panchayat, Shahkot for permanent injunction. The petitioner-plaintiff alleged that the suit land measuring 11 kanals 14 marlas comprised of khasra no. 13, previously owned by Shamlat Deh, was in possession of Rajinder Lal. Thereafter Mohan Lal Civil Revision No. 850 of 2009 (O&M) -2- came in possession of the suit land. Government of India vide notification dated 6.2.1971 transferred the suit land to Punjab Wakf Board, but khasra number 14 was inadvertently mentioned instead of khasra no. 13. However, the same was corrected vide Gazette Notification dated 26.2.1994. Accordingly, the plaintiff became owner of the suit land. The plaintiff leased out the suit land to Mohan Lal who is in possession thereof. The defendant alleged that the defendant is owner of the suit land and it was in possession of its tenant Rajinder Lal. The defendant obtained eviction order dated 25.7.1994 from competent court for eviction of Rajinder Lal from the suit land. However, Rajinder Lal colluded with Mohan Lal who started claiming to be tenant over the suit land under the defendant. Mohan Lal on this plea moved application dated 6.6.1994 before the Assistant Collector. The said application was allowed by the Assistant Collector but the order of the Assistant Collector was set aside in appeal. It was pleaded that the suit land was previously owned by Shamlat Deh and is now owned by defendant Nagar Panchayat and is in possession of Rajinder Lal as tenant under the defendant. Allegations of the plaintiff were controverted. Learned Wakf Tribunal dismissed the plaintiff's suit. Feeling aggrieved, the Wakf Board has filed the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner Wakf Board has become owner of the suit land by way of notifications issued by the Government of India under the Wakf Act. However, this Civil Revision No. 850 of 2009 (O&M) -3- contention cannot be accepted because the question of ownership of the suit land is not to be decided in the instant case which pertains to permanent injunction only. Admittedly, the plaintiff-petitioner filed separate suit for declaration of ownership of the suit land and in that case also, revision petition is pending. Consequently, question of title will be decided in the said separate case. Only question of possession is to be decided in the instant case because relief sought is of permanent injunction. As regards possession, even the plaintiff admitted in the plaint that the suit land was previously owned by Shamlat Deh and was in possession of Rajinder Lal. Defendant's case is that Rajinder Lal was tenant over the suit land under the defendant. It is not even the plaintiff's case that Rajinder Lal was tenant under the plaintiff. Consequently, it emerges that defendant was in possession of the suit land through its tenant Rajinder Lal. Mohan Lal has filed CM No. 15245.CII of 2009 under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for being impleaded as party to this revision petition alleging that he is in possession of the suit land as tenant under the Wakf Board. However, in eviction proceedings initiated by defendant against Rajinder Lal, Mohan Lal himself pleaded that he is tenant under Nagar Panchayat on payment of rent to Nagar Panchayat i.e. defendant. Consequently, if Mohan Lal now claims himself to be tenant of Wakf Board being inducted subsequently, it cannot effect rights of the defendant. According to the admitted case of the plaintiff as well as of applicant-Mohan Lal, defendant was earlier in possession of the suit land through Rajinder Lal tenant and even later on, Mohan Lal also claimed himself to be tenant of Nagar Panchayat-defendant. Consequently, the Civil Revision No. 850 of 2009 (O&M) -4- plaintiff Wakf Board never came in possession of the suit land and therefore, suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff Wakf Board would not be maintainable. Applicant-Mohan Lal also, therefore, has no right to be impleaded as party to the instant revision petition. Moreover, there is no explanation as to why the applicant Mohan Lal did not move application in trial court for being impleaded as party to the suit although the applicant knew about pendency of the suit and even appeared as witness in the trial court in rebuttal evidence. For this added reason as well, the applicant cannot be impleaded as party at revisional stage. Accordingly, CM No. 15245.CII of 2009 moved by Mohan Lal for making him party to the instant revision petition is dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that petitioner is owner of the suit land. However, ownership of the suit land is not being decided in the instant revision petition. Suit filed by the petitioner being for permanent injunction only, question of possession only is relevant in the instant case. The plaintiff-petitioner never came in possession of the suit land. On the other hand, defendant was in possession of the suit land through its tenant Rajinder Lal. Even Mohan Lal claimed his possession as tenant under the defendant. Consequently, the finding of the Wakf Tribunal that plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land is fully justified and does not warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. There is no merit in the revision petition which is accordingly dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) August 16, 2010 Judge 'dalbir' Civil Revision No. 850 of 2009 (O&M) -5-