C.R. No.6122 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.6122 of 2007 Date of Decision: 22.09.2009 Vijay Kumar .....Petitioner Versus Keshav Kumar and another ...Respondents Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Sandhawalia, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of 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? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The decree in challenge before this Court is a dismissal of an action sought at the instance of the plaintiff, who claimed the property to have been granted to him under a lease by the Wakf Board. The defendants had a rival contention to make by stating that the property, although admitted to be a wakf property was granted in lease in favour of the defendants and that the permission had been granted to the defendants for construction of some building by the Wakf Board. The Wakf Tribunal on due consideration of the relevant evidence placed before it held that except for a stray entry in the revenue records, the plaintiff had not shown his possession to the property. It had further held that there had been a valid lease in favour of the defendants by the Wakf Board and the defendants had been granted specific authorization by the Wakf Board to put up C.R. No.6122 of 2007 -2- construction. The Tribunal, therefore, held both as regards the lawful entitlement to hold a possession and the actual proof of possession that the plaintiff had not established his case and denied to him the decree for injunction that he sought for. 2. The case suffered from yet another vice although not specifically dealt with by the Tribunal that Section 90 of the Wakf Act requires that “in every suit or proceeding relating to a title or possession of a wakf property or the right of a mutawalli or beneficiary, the court or Tribunal shall issue notice to the Board at the cost of the party instituting such suit or proceeding.” The said Section states in sub-clause 3 that “in the absence of a notice under sub- section (1), any decree or order passed in the suit or proceeding shall be declared void, if the Board, within one month of its coming to know of such suit or proceeding, applies to the court in this behalf.” However, it is pointed out even by the counsel for the respondent that the Wakf Board has not chosen to act in the manner referred to in sub- section 90(3) but even then the right of the Wakf Board itself is not compromised in any way. The language of Section 90 is so employed that it does not require a Wakf Board to be even impleaded as a party. All that the statute mandates, is a notice of suit or proceeding to the Wakf Board. The Section obviously is intended to protect the interest of the wakf and that no party indulges in litigation in relation to a wakf property without bringing the Wakf Board to notice of the pendency of a suit or proceeding. 3. Even while confirming the order of the Tribunal, I make it clear that the Wakf Board, if it feels aggrieved in any fashion, shall be C.R. No.6122 of 2007 -3- at liberty to protect its own rights. The relief of injunction sought for by the plaintiff had been properly disallowed by the Wakf Tribunal and there is no scope for intervention in revision. The revision petition is dismissed. No costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 22, 2009 Pankaj*