IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.3732 of 2007 Date of Decision:- 21.04.2008 Haryana Wakf Board ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.Arun Palli, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Jai Bhagwan, Advocate. vs. Niranjan Kumar and others ....Respondent(s) through Mr. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** 1) Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? *** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 8.12.2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhiwani-cum- Tribunal under Section 85 of the Wakf Act, 1995 whereby the suit for permanent injunction filed by the respondent-plaintiffs has been decreed against the petitioner-Board. The dispute pertains to possessory rights over a plot denoted with letters ABCD in the site plan appended with the plaint. The said plot was leased out to one Om Parkash, predecessor-in-interest of the respondent-plaintiffs by the petitioner-Board, namely, the Punjab Wakf Board with effect from 1.11.1985. It appears that the Board cancelled the lease and wanted to take possession of the subject land from Om Parkash which prompted the latter C.R. No.3732 of 2007 -2- to file a civil suit which was though dismissed by the learned trial Court, however, on an appeal filed by said Om Parkash, was decreed by the then District Judge, Bhiwani vide his judgment and decree dated 6.3.1997 (Exh.P-4). It is not in dispute that the above-stated judgment inter se the parties has attained finality. The petitioner-Board and its Authorities, however, again attempted to dispossess the successors-in-interest of Om Parkash from the plot in dispute, compelling them to file the present suit for permanent injunction. In the light of the binding judgment inter se the parties (Exh.P-4) the learned Tribunal has decreed the suit and has restrained the Board from dispossessing the legal representatives of Om Parkash from the subject plot, except in due course of law. As the facts would speak for themselves, in the light of the judgment and decree dated 6.3.1997 (Exh.P-4), the only remedy for the petitioner-Board is to file a suit for possession on the basis of its alleged title qua the subject land. Dismissed. April 21, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE