Civil Revision No.5313 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5313 of 2010 Date of Decision : 12.12.2011 Nagar Panchayat Moonak .......Petitioner Versus Teja Ram and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents. **** JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (ORAL) The petitioner, Nagar Panchayat, Moonak, through its Executive Officer, has invoked the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 05.09.2009, Annexure P1, whereby the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC has been dismissed, by the Tribunal under the Wakf Act, Sangrur. Briefly, the plaintiff-petitioner alleged that the plaintiff-Gram Panchayat is in possession of the property in 1 Civil Revision No.5313 of 2010 dispute since 10.03.1998. The Punjab Wakf Board is owner of the property, but it never came into possession. A water tank, the tubewells and two rooms have been constructed by the Public Works Department (PWD) for public facilities, which is surrounded by boundary walls. The Board has no right to give its property, which is measuring 226 ½ sq. yds., on lease. On the other hand, the defendants pleaded that they are in possession of the land as lessees under the Board. The learned Tribunal dismissed the application of the plaintiff (petitioner herein) under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on 05.09.2009. The plaintiff-petitioner has filed this revision petition on 21.8.2010, before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. This revision was filed after one year of the passing the impugned order. So, this Court refrains itself from exercising the extra ordinary powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as it is hit by delay and laches. There is no explanation for the delay to challenge the impugned order. No doubt, there is no limitation prescribed under the Statute to come to this Court, but it ought to be filed within reasonable time. The proceedings under the Wakf Act are judicial proceedings and the procedural Acts are applicable in these proceedings. 2 Civil Revision No.5313 of 2010 There is no evidence on record on the basis of which it can be presumed that the petitioner-plaintiff is the owner of the land in question. The learned Tribunal, while passing the impugned order, has relied upon the Jamabandi for the year 2001- 02, wherein the Punjab Wakf Board has been shown to be the owner of the disputed property. The respondents are stated to be the lessee of the Punjab Wakf Board. The learned Tribunal has observed that the Punjab Wakf B oard is the owner of the suit property as per jamabandi and the PWD is shown to be in possession of the property. The plaintiff, for the reasons best known to it, has neither impleaded the State of Punjab nor the Punjab Wakf Board as a party, in the absence of which, the real facts are not likely to surface. The Nagar Panchayat, Moonak is neither owner nor in possession as per the jamabandi for the year 2001-02. It is not pleaded as to how the plaintiff-petitioner came in possession of the property. A third party cannot seek injunction against the owner. The defendants-respondents alleged themselves to be the lessees of the Punjab Wakf Board. In the absence of any document on record with regard to the ownership or possession of the petitioner, the assertion made by the petitioner that it is the owner-in-possession, cannot be believed, at this stage. 3 Civil Revision No.5313 of 2010 In the light of the aforesaid discussion, no interference is called for in the impugned order dated 05.09.2009 and the same is upheld. The present revision petition is accordingly dismissed. However, this order will not have any bearing on the merits of the case. ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) 12.12.2011 JUDGE atulsethi Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No 4