RSA No.1284 of 1997 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1284 of 1997 Date of Decision: November 11, 2009 Punjab Wakf Board ...........Appellant Versus Gram Panchayat and others ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.J.S.Bhatia, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.C.L.Sharma, Advocate for the respondent No.1 Mr.K.S.Cheema,Advocate for respondent No.2 ** Sabina, J. Plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed against defendant No.1 by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Hoshiarpur vide judgment and decree dated 16.8.1996. The appeal filed by defendant-Gram Panchayat was allowed and the suit of the plaintiff-respondent was dismissed by the District Judge, Hoshiarpur vide judgment and decree dated 10.12.2006. Hence, the present appeal by defendant No.2. The facts of the case, as noticed by the District Judge in paras 2 and 3 of its judgment, read as under:- “Girdhari Lal plaintiff filed the present suit for permanent injunction restraining the Gram Panchayat from forcibly dispossessing him from the land measuring 10 kanals 7 marlas alleged to have been owned by defendant No.2, the Wakf Board. RSA No.1284 of 1997 2 According to the plaintiff, Shankar Dass, his father, was earlier in possession of the land on payment of Chakota under defendant No.2 Wakf Board was the owner of the land as per the notification. The Gram Panchayat threatened to dispossess the plaintiff, who came into possession of the land after the death of his father in 1992, which necessitated the filing of the present suit. 3. The suit was contested by the defendant No.1 on the grounds that the property in dispute was owned by the Gram Panchayat and it was recorded in the revenue record. The whole of the muslim population of the village had migrated to Pakistan in 1947 and the property has never been used as a grave-yard. The land was being managed by the defendant No.1 and the gazette notification was illegal and ineffective. The mutation has been ordered to be sanctioned in favour of the panchayat by the Assistant Collector and the appeal filed by the Wakf Board has been dismissed. 4. Defendant No.2, the Wakf Board pleaded that the plaintiff was being dispossessed by it. The mutation does not confer any right on defendant No.1 On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1.Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land as Chakotadar under defendant No.2?OPP 2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for?OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPP RSA No.1284 of 1997 3 4. Whether the Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit?OPD 5. Whether the suit is barred by the principles of resjudicata ?OPD 6. Relief.” After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. Plaintiff-Girdhari Lal had filed a suit for permanent injunction that the Gram Panchayat-defendant No.1 be restrained from interfering in his peaceful possession. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed. However, in appeal, the learned District Judge dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Plaintiff filed RSA No.256 of 1997 against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge. The said appeal was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 29.1.1997 and it was held that the plaintiff had failed to prove that he was in possession of the suit land. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge by defendant No.2- Punjab Wakf Board being aggrieved by the finding of the learned District Judge to the effect that the suit land was owned by Gram Panchayat and not by the Wakf Board. The appellant had placed reliance on notification issued under the Wakf Act declaring the suit property as Wakf property. On 17.7.1991, a mutation was sanctioned in favour of the Wakf Board by the Assistant Collector Grade II. In appeal filed by the Panchayat, the matter was remanded back by the Collector vide order dated 23.10.1992. The Assistant Collector First Grade Hoshiarpur sanctioned the mutation in favour of the Gram Panchayat vide order dated 9.11.1993. The appeal filed by the Wakf Board against the said order was dismissed vide order dated 8.4.1994. As per PW2, Gaja Nand, there was no muslim population in the RSA No.1284 of 1997 4 village Raipur. Although a notification was issued in favour of the Wakf Board but it failed to establish that the suit property,in fact, vested in the Wakf Board. There was no evidence on record that the property had ever been dedicated to the Wakf and could be so declared as a Wakf property. It is a settled proposition of law that the nature of the property as to whether it is a Wakf property or not has to be decided on the basis of evidence led by the parties, besides notification under the Act declaring a particular property as Wakf property. In these circumstances, the learned District Judge rightly held that the suit property was owned by the Gram Panchayat and not by Wakf Board. The said finding of fact cannot be interfered by this Court in appeal. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal which would warrant interference by this Court Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge November 11, 2009 arya