IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 15.12.2010 C.R.No.1255 of 2003 Punjab Wakf Board ...Petitioner Versus Gram Panchayat, Village Nasirpur and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Mr. Arun Palli, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Bhag Singh, Advocate, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) The plaintiff is in revision aggrieved against the judgment dated 24.02.2000, wherein the learned trial Court has returned a finding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit and ordered for return of the plaint for presentation before the proper Court. The appeal against the said judgment was dismissed on 24.09.2002. The plaintiff-petitioner claimed a declaration that the land in dispute is a wakf property being a Muslim graveyard and vests in it. In the said suit, the defendant-Gram Panchayat raised a plea that the suit property is, in fact, a shamlat deh and in view of Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit. Learned trial Court after considering the various judgments held that the issue whether the suit land is a shamlat deh or not and falls, within the exclusive jurisdiction of the C.R.No.1255 of 2003 Revenue Court under Section 13 of the Act and consequently, ordered that the plaint be returned for presentation before the proper Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the plaintiff has claimed declaration that the land in dispute is a wakf property and in view of the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported as Ramesh Gobindram (dead) through LRs Vs. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf (2010) 8 SCC 766”, it is Civil Court alone, which is required to adjudicate and decide the nature of the property, whether it is a wakf or not. Therefore, the Civil Court has exclusive jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. It is contended that the evidence on record leads no manner of doubt that the suit property is a wakf property and, therefore, the orders passed by the Courts below in respect of returning the plaint are not sustainable. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the primary question is; whether the suit land is shamlat deh or not. Such question is required to be decided by the Collector under Section 13 of the Act. If the suit land is shamlat deh, the assertion of the plaintiff that it is wakf property will not survive. It is contended that the Collector is competent to return a finding that the suit land is not a shamlat and vests with the petitioner. It is argued that the Collector exercised his jurisdiction as that of the Civil Court, but in respect of issue; whether it is shamlat or not, the jurisdiction of the Collector is exclusive. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by the Courts below, which may warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The judgment of Ramesh Gobindram’s case (supra) is not helpful to decide the issue raised in the present petition. The issue is; whether a Civil Court will have jurisdiction to decide the controversy raised 2 C.R.No.1255 of 2003 in the suit or the Revenue Court and not the issue; whether vis-à-vis Civil Court and the Wakf Tribunal raised and decided in Ramesh Gobindram’s case (supra). Though the plaintiff is claiming a suit property to be wakf property, but on the other hand is claiming declaration against a Panchayat. The Panchayat is asserting title, as owner of the suit land alleging the suit land to be shamlat. In respect of such plea, it is the Collector under Section 13 of the Act alone, who is competent to decide the said question. The Collector as a Revenue Court is substitution of the Civil Court. Therefore, the Collector is competent to decide all questions including the question; whether the property vests in the Panchayat as shamlat or that it is a wakf property as asserted by the petitioner. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Courts below, which may warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed. 15.12.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 3