C.R.No.231 of 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.231 of 2005 Date of decision:04.03.2011 Haryana Wakf Board, Gurgaon ..... Petitioner Versus Ajikhan and others ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr.Jai Bhagwan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Adarsh Jain, Advocate for respondents no.1 to 4. ***** RAJIVE BHALLA, J.(ORAL) The short point that arises for adjudication is whether the petitioner-Haryana Wakf Board is entitled to be impleaded as a party in the suit filed by respondents no.1 to 4. The Wakf Board filed an application for being impleaded as a party in the suit pending between the respondents. The trial court dismissed the application by holding that the notification pressed into service by the Wakf Board, does not bind the respondents. Counsel for the petitioner-Wakf Board submits that as the notification dated 21.11.1970 published in the Gazette of India, clearly refers to the land in dispute as a “Gair Mumkin Kabristan”, the Wakf Board is a necessary party. It is further argued that as the suit relates to ownership of the land in dispute, it cannot be decided without impleading the Wakf Board. It is further submitted that the trial court has committed an error in holding that as the notification is not binding C.R.No.231 of 2005 -2- upon strangers, the Wakf Board cannot be impleaded as a party. Counsel for respondents no.1 to 4 submits that as respondents no.1 to 4 have filed a suit praying that the decree of ownership obtained by respondents no.5 to 6, under Section 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 is a nullity, the Board is neither a necessary nor a proper party. It is argued that as the dispute inter-se the respondents, as to the legality of the decree does not affect the rights of the Wakf Board, the trial court, rightly declined the application. In support of its plea that it should be impleaded as a party, the Haryana Wakf Board has pressed into service a notification issued by the Government of India, declaring the property in dispute as a wakf. Neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants have denied the notification. The argument that as the plaintiffs have not sought a declaration of title or that such a notification does not bind strangers is irrelevant. The plaintiffs have sought a declaration that as the land is Shamlat Patti i.e. it vests in the plaintiffs and other proprietors and not in the defendants. The grant of such a declaration would necessarily affect the rights of the Wakf Board. The mere fact that the notification, describing the land in dispute, as a wakf is not binding on a stranger cannot deprive the Wakf Board of its rights to prove that the land in dispute is a wakf. The trial court has therefore, committed an error of jurisdiction in holding that the Wakf Board is not a necessary party. As such, the revision is allowed, the impugned order is set C.R.No.231 of 2005 -3- aside and the application filed by the petitioner Wakf-Board for being impleaded as party is allowed. Before parting with the judgement, it would be appropriate to mention that with the enactment of Wakf Act, 1995, a question whether a property is a wakf or not has to be decided by a Wakf Tribunal. The Wakf Board may if so advised consider filing of an independent suit before a Wakf Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the afore- mentioned Act. Parties are directed to appear before the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ferozepur, Jhirka, on 02.05.2011. 04.03.2011 [ RAJIVE BHALLA ] shamsher JUDGE