C. R. No. 4216 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 4216 of 2009 Date of Decision : September 30, 2010 Santa Singh and another .... Petitioners Vs. Punjab Wakf Board and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Vikas Behl, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Dinesh Goyal, Advocate for respondent no.1. Respondent no.2 ex-parte. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Defendants no.1 and 2 have filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging judgment and decree dated 27.04.2009 passed by Wakf Tribunal, Sangrur, thereby decreeing the suit filed by plaintiff-respondent no.1 Punjab Wakf Board against petitioners and proforma respondent no.2 (defendants) for possession of the suit land. The plaintiff alleged that the suit land is Wakf property vesting C. R. No. 4216 of 2009 2 in the Wakf Board. Defendants have no right, title or interest therein. Defendants denied the plaint allegations and claimed to be in possession of the suit land and to have become its owners by adverse possession. It was also pleaded that counter claim for possession of the suit land made by plaintiff Wakf Board in the previous suit instituted by defendants was dismissed. However, according to the plaintiff, its claim for possession of the suit property was decreed in some other previous litigation. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Wakf Tribunal, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 27.04.2009, decreed the plaintiff's suit. Feeling aggrieved, defendants no.1 and 2 have preferred the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal, constituted under the Wakf Act, 1995 (in short – the Act) to try the suit, is barred, as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Gobindram (dead) through LRs vs. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf reported as 2010 (2) Rent Control Reporter 266. On the other hand, learned counsel for plaintiff-respondent no.1 contended that jurisdiction of Wakf Tribunal to adjudicate upon the question of ownership of Wakf Board over the suit property is not barred. For reasons mentioned in order dated 29.09.2010 passed by this C. R. No. 4216 of 2009 3 Court in C. R. No. 2973 of 2009 titled Punjab Wakf Board vs. Kaur Singh and others, it is held that jurisdiction of Wakf Tribunal to adjudicate upon the suit instituted by plaintiff-respondent no.1 is barred and only civil court has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the suit. Accordingly, the instant revision petition is allowed and impugned judgment and decree dated 27.04.2009, passed by learned Presiding Officer, the Tribunal (Constituted under the Wakf Act)-cum-Additional District Judge-1, Sangrur are set aside and plaint instituted by plaintiff-respondent is ordered to be returned for presentation before court of competent jurisdiction. Plaintiff-respondent no.1 is directed to appear before the Wakf Tribunal, Sangrur on 25.10.2010 for receiving back the plaint. September 30, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE