Civil Revision No. 3547 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3547 of 2010 Date of decision: 02.11.2011 Hardeep Singh ……Petitioner Versus Punjab Wakf Board …….Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Jain, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** A.N. Jindal, J. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.03.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge-cum- Tribunal under the Wakf Act, Hoshiarpur, whereby the suit of the plaintiff- respondent (hereinafter referred as ‘the plaintiff’) for possession of the suit land was decreed along with the mesne profits for three years, which comes to Rs.46,728/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization of the decretal amount. The plaintiff has filed this suit on the basis of ownership while alleging the defendant-petitioner (hereinafter referred as ‘the defendant’) to be a trespasser. It was further alleged that defendant is using the suit property without any right and interest and enjoying the fruits of the said 1 Civil Revision No. 3547 of 2010 property for the last 9 years. Plaintiff had also served a legal notice upon him, but to no response. Therefore, he had to file the present suit. The defendant in his written statement, while admitting his possession, denied the ownership of the plaintiff. It was further alleged that the suit land was the ownership of the proprietors of the village and his father-in-law namely Dial Singh was in possession since 1950 being the proprietor of the village, as owner. In the year 1974, the defendant came in possession on the basis of inheritance attained by his wife and thus, he is continuing as such since then. The entries in the revenue record are not correct. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession as prayed for? OPP 2. Relief.” Both the parties led evidence. The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff in the aforesaid terms. The defendant has not denied the entry in the revenue record, where the respondent is recorded as owner. Jamabandi for the year 2002-03 also establishes the fact that the respondent is the owner of the suit property. No document has been produced in rebuttal to prove that the suit land was ownership of the proprietors of the village. Even in reply to the notice dated 14.02.2004, the defendant did not controvert the allegations. The contention of the defendant that his father-in-law Dial Singh was owner in possession of the land since the year 1950 being proprietor of the village, is totally false. No documentary evidence in this context has been produced on the record. The other contention of the defendant is that if he is not treated as owner, then he having inherited the tenancy rights through his wife on 2 Civil Revision No. 3547 of 2010 the death of her father, may be treated to be as tenant under the respondent. In this regard, it may be observed that the defendant is blowing hot and cold in the same breath. On one hand, he is claiming himself to be owner of the property and on the other hand he wants to take protection of an entry in the revenue record where he is recorded as tenant. This entry was never owned by him. As such, he cannot be allowed to do so. Resultantly, finding no merit in the petition, the same is hereby dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) November 2, 2011 Judge ajp 3