C.R. No. 4231 of 2009 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 4231 of 2009 Date of Decision : 9.11.2009 Punjab Wakf Board, now Haryana Wakf Board, Ambala Cantt. .......... Petitioner Versus M/s Karnal Steel Traders & another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2008 passed by the learned Tribunal constituted under Section 83 of the Punjab Wakf Act, 1995. The plaintiff / petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction claiming therein that the land in dispute measuring 1 Bigha 12 Biswas comprised in Khasra No. 4123 and land measuring 1 Bigha 17 Biswas comprised in Khasra No. 4122 vests in the Punjab Wakf Board and is being used by the Muslims of Karnal since the time immemorial. It was the case set up by the plaintiff, that part of the land had been encroached upon by the defendants, which was shown with red colour in the site plan. C.R. No. 4231 of 2009 2 The suit was contested, wherein the defendants took a plea that they were owners in possession of the suit property in pursuance to the purchase. It was also the case set up by the defendants, that in the previous litigation the property was held to be evacuee property and Punjab Wakf Board was held not to be owner of the suit property. The parties were allowed to lead evidence. The learned Tribunal on appreciation of evidence was pleased to dismiss the suit by recording the following findings :- “Now I am required to give findings if the plot in dispute as shown with red colour is part of the land comprised in Khasra No. 4123 or not. It stands proved that the land comprised in Khasra No. 4123 vests in Punjab Wakf Board. As per entries in the copy of jamabandi for the year 1989-90 Ex. P8 and Ex.P9 land comprised in Khasra No. 4123 is shown in possession of Central government through Nathi Ram son of Mangat Ram as gair marusi. The nature of the property is mentioned as gair mumkin makanat. In the copy of jamabandi for the year 2004-05 Ex.P6 land comprised in Khasra No. 4123 is shown in possession of Central Government through Gian Chand son of Nar Singh Dass C.R. No. 4231 of 2009 3 gair marusi. The nature of the land is shown as gair mumkin makanat. In this way, as per revenue record neither Punjab Wakf Board is in possession of the land comprised in Khasra No 4123 nor the defendants are in possession of the land comprised in Khasra No. 4123. In this way, plaintiff wants decree for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction regarding the land shown with red colour in the site plan Ex. P7 mentioning that this land is part of land comprised in Khasra No. 4122 and 4123. Plaintiff has not prayed for a decree for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction against the defendants regarding the land comprised in Khasra No. 4122 and 4123. Keeping in mind the plea taken by the plaintiff, plaintiff was required to prove that the land shown with red colour in the site plan Ex. P7 is part of land comprised in Khasra No. 4122 or 4123. I feel plaintiff should have got demarcated the land in dispute prior to the date of filing of the suit to make it clear that the land in dispute shown with red colour in the site plan is C.R. No. 4231 of 2009 4 part of the land comprised in khasra No. 4122 or 4123. The suit remained pending in various Courts for a period of about 12 years and the plaintiff never requested for demarcation of the suit property. In this way for want of demarcation the plaintiff could not prove that the land shown with red colour in the site plan is comprised in Khasra no. 4122 and 4123 or that the land vests in Punjab Wakf Board. In this way, defendants have taken their definite plea that they are in possession of the land purchased in the name of Transport Company from legal heirs of Ram Singh and civil Court had already given findings that the land in possession of Ram Singh was owned by him which was purchased by him from Gurnam Singh and Gurnam Singh had acquired rights of ownership in that land through allotment being evacuee property.” The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order, primarily on the ground, that it was wrong for the Court to have non-suited the plaintiff / petitioner for want of demarcation, as the demarcation could be carried out even at this stage. In support of this contention the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the C.R. No. 4231 of 2009 5 judgment of this Court in the case of Punjab Wakf Board. Ambala Cantt. Vs. Shri Neeko 2004(3) RCR ( Civil) 506, wherein this Court has been pleased to lay down that this Court can appoint Local Commissioner suo motu without any application from party if the Court is of the view that local investigation is requisite and proper. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, on the face of it, is misconceived. The positive finding has been recorded by the learned Tribunal, that in the previous litigation the property was held to not in the ownership of the Punjab Wakf Board. The plaintiff / petitioner filed a suit but did not lead any evidence to get the property in dispute demarcated, to claim ownership over the property in dispute. In revision the petitioner cannot be permitted to fill in lacuna, especially when the findings referred to above would show, that these are recorded on the basis of evidence and there is hardly any doubt regarding the ownership of the property. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contended, that in the previous suit Khasra No. 4122 was held to be, not the property of the Wakf Board, whereas Khasra No. 4123 was the property of the Wakf Board, therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the learned Tribunal deserves to be set aside. This plea again is misconceived. The learned Tribunal has recorded a finding, that the plaintiff failed to prove that the land in dispute form part of khasra No. 4123. Needless to say, that in the previous litigation the defendants were held to be owner of the property in dispute, in C.R. No. 4231 of 2009 6 pursuance to the purchase, therefore, the contentions raised are misconceived and deserve to be rejected. Consequently, finding no merit in the revision, it is ordered to be dismissed. No costs. 9.11.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE