Civil Revision No. 2700 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2700 of 2008 Date of decision : March 16, 2010 Sham Singh ....Petitioner versus Punjab Wakf Board and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Tarun Lehal, Advocate for Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate, for respondent no. 1 L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) This is revision petition by defendant no. 3 Sham Singh under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 3.12.2007 passed by learned Wakf Tribunal. Respondent no. 1 Punjab Wakf Board filed suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner and respondent nos. 2 to 4. Respondent no. 4 is wife of the petitioner. Respondents no. 2 and 3 (defendants no. 1 and 2 in the suit) are Punjab State Electricity Board (in short PSEB) and its Assistant Executive Engineer. The plaintiff Wakf Board sought injunction restraining defendants no. 1 and 2 from sanctioning/installing new electric connection and from changing feeder of the existing electric connection of defendants no. 3 and 4 or their relatives. Temporary injunction to the same effect was sought during pendency of the suit. The Wakf Board alleged Civil Revision No. 2700 of 2008 -2- that suit property was taken on temporary lease by defendants no. 3 and 4 from the plaintiff in the year 1972. Defendants no. 3 and 4 paid lease money till 1977-78 and then stopped paying lease amount and their possession thereafter became unauthorised. Many frivolous suits filed by defendants no. 3 and 4 stand dismissed. Now defendants no. 3 and 4 have applied to defendants no. 1 and 2 for change of feeder of existing electric connection and for installation of new connection. Defendants no. 3 and 4, interalia, pleaded that the suit property is in the name of Central Government and therefore, prior permission or sanction of plaintiff Wakf Board is not required for change of feeder or for new connection. Learned Wakf Tribunal vide impugned order dated 3.12.2007 has allowed application moved by plaintiff/respondent no. 1 for temporary injunction and has restrained defendants no. 1 and 2 from sanctioning or installing new electric connection and from changing feeder of existing electric connection on the application of defendants no. 3 and 4 till decision of the suit. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision petition has been preferred by petitioner-defendant no. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset contended that the Wakf Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to try the suit for permanent injunction. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on unreported judgment dated 16.7.2009 by Hon'ble Single Bench of this Court in Civil Revision No. 4363 of 2007, titled Shamsher Singh alias Civil Revision No. 2700 of 2008 -3- Sher Singh versus Bahi Mohemmed and others. However, this judgment is not applicable to the instant case. In that case both the contesting parties admitted the Wakf Board to be owner of the suit property. In the instant case, however, defendants no. 3 and 4 have, interalia, pleaded that the suit property stands in the name of Central Government. In fact, on the preceding date of hearing, counsel for the petitioner sought adjournment to seek instructions regarding stand of plaintiff-respondent no. 1 that defendants no. 3 and 4 had taken the suit property on temporary lease in the year 1972 from plaintiff-respondent no. 1 and paid lease money till 1977-78 and then stopped paying the lease money. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that no clear and specific stand has been taken by defendants no. 3 and 4 in this regard before the Tribunal. Thus, in the instant case apparently defendants no. 3 and 4 even denied the title or right of the Wakf Board over the suit property and therefore, jurisdiction of the Tribunal cannot be said to be barred. In addition to the aforesaid, counsel for respondent no. 1 has cited various judgments namely Pookoya Haji versus Cheriyakoya, 2003(4) RCR (Civil) 474; M. Bikshapathi versus Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2003(1) RCR (Civil) 212; Wakf Imambara Imlipura, Khandwa versus Smt. Khursheeda Bi & Ors, AIR 2009 (M.P.) 238; Gurdial Singh and others versus Punjab Wakf Board, 2006(4) RCR (Civil) 289 and Civil Revision No. 5570 of 2007, titled Balwinder Singh versus Haryana Wakf Board, decided on 22.12.2009. According to the ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments, the Wakf Tribunal has jurisdiction to try such a suit. As noticed hereinabove, defendants no. 3 and 4 having taken Civil Revision No. 2700 of 2008 -4- the suit property on lease are denying the title of Wakf Board thereon. Defendants no. 3 and 4 are also not paying rent of the suit property to the Wakf Board for the last more than 30 years. Learned Wakf Tribunal has also observed that a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 9089 of 1993 decided on 8.2.1994 held that Punjab Wakf Board is owner of the suit property and defendants no. 3 and 4 herein have been playing fraud not only with the plaintiff Wakf Board but also with the courts by filing frivolous litigation. In view of this entire conduct of the defendants no. 3 and 4, the petitioner does not deserve any relief in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. On the contrary, defendants no. 3 and 4 are prima facie in unauthorised occupation of the suit property for more than three decades and for this reason as well, the impugned order cannot be faulted. It may, however, be noticed that at the time of motion hearing claim for sanction/installation of new electric connection was given up and the revision petition was pressed for change of feeder of existing electric connection only. However, the petitioner is not entitled to the same as well, in view of reasons recorded hereinbefore. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in the instant revision petition. The impugned order of the Wakf Tribunal cannot be said to be perverse or illegal. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. However, nothing observed hereinbefore shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the suit. ( L.N. Mittal ) March 16, 2010 Judge 'tiwana'