IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH …… Civil Revision No. 5920 of 2011 Date of decision: 05.12.2011 Gram Panchayat, Modi ..... Petitioner Versus Haryana Wakf Board & Ors. ..... Respondents …… CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Gobind Dhanda, Advocate for the petitioners. *** RITU BAHRI, J This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for setting aside the impugned judgment and de- cree dated 27.08.2010 (Annexure P-1) passed in a Civil Suit No. 3-RT of 2010 by Ld. Additional District Judge, Narnaul acting as a Tribunal un- der the Haryana Wakf Act, whereby suit of the plaintiff/petitioner has been dismissed. The petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and per- manent injunction against the defendants on the allegation that the pe- titioner/Gram Panchayat was the owner in possession of the disputed property. During the consolidation the disputed land was reserved as Civil Revision No. 5920 of 2011 -2- Gair Mumkin Kabristan and it was recorded as such in jamabandi for the year 1963-64. The disputed land was reserved for common pur- poses and for welfare of the village community. The disputed property was never used as graveyard after 1947 and muslim residents of the village had migrated to Pakistan. On notice defendants put in appear- ance and filed their written statements. The Haryana Wakf Board-de- fendant No.1 claimed that the suit property was owned by defendant No.1-Haryana Wakf Board. Defendants No.2 and 3 are the licensees under defendant No.1-Haryana Wakf Board. It was again claimed that the property was not reserved as graveyard after consolidation. The property was mutated to Wakf Board vide notification dated 29.08.1970 issued by Government of India and the plaintiff-petitioner is estopped from filing the present suit. The defendant No.2 took stand in the written statement that he was a licensee under defendant No.1-Ha- ryana Wakf Board. Similar additional pleas were taken by defendant No.2 as were taken by defendant No.1-Haryana Wakf Board. Defen- dant No.3 was given up whereas no written statement was filed by de- fendant No.4. The disputed property was being used as graveyard up to the year 1947. After the completion of pleadings following issues were framed:- 1. Whether plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to injunction as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation? OPP 4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit? OPD 5. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? OPD 6. Relief. The trial Court after going through the evidence led by the parties has come to the conclusion that on the basis of notification Civil Revision No. 5920 of 2011 -3- dated 29.08.1970 issued by the Government of India, which is exhibit P-10 the land in dispute was declared as Wakf property. On migration of the muslims from India to Pakistan the properties occupied by the muslims were transferred to Rehabilitation Department declaring the properties as Evacuee property and such properties were allotted to displaced persons for their rehabilitation who migrated from Pakistan to India. The religious properties of the muslims or other property used by the muslims community for common purposes were transferred to Wakf Board. In this background the land in dispute was declared as Wakf property vide notification issued by the Government of India on 29.08.1970. The disputed property vests in the Wakf since notification dated 29.08.1970. There is no challenge to the said notification (Ex- P10) in the suit filed by the Gram Panchyat. The Wakf Board was held to be the owner of the land in dispute and the issues No.1 and 2 were decided against the plaintiff-petitioner. The disputed property was de- clared as Wakf property vide notification issued by the Government of India in the year 1970 certainly the suit filed in the year 2008 was hopelessly time barred. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in the year 1992 the land in dispute was mutated in favour of the Gram Pan- chayat on 13.03.1992 vide Ex.P3. Subsequently on 17.09.1992, the land in dispute was mutated again in favour of the respondent No.1-Ha- ryana Wakf Board without notice to the petitioner. He further argued that the notification dated 29.08.1970 issued by the Government of In- dia is not binding on the Gram Panchayat. Once a land in dispute has been mutated in the name of Gram Panchayat-petitioner vide Ex-P3 without notice to Gram Panchayat-petitioner, this mutation could not be changed. At present respondent No.1-Haryana Wakf Board is not Civil Revision No. 5920 of 2011 -4- using the disputed property for religious purposes, it is leasing out the land to the inhabitants of the village. This argument is liable to be rejected as in the plaint Gram Panchayat has stated that the disputed property was being used as graveyard up to the year 1947 and after 1947 the disputed property ceased to be a graveyard. This argument is liable to be rejected in view of judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sayyed Ali Vs. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad, 1999 (2) RCR 32, vide which it has been held that once a property is declared as Wakf property and is recognized by Muslim law, it will always retain its character as Wakf. As per law laid down in 2005 (1) RCR 818 Punjab Wakf Board, Ambala Vs. Gram Panchayat Mangali Aklan and another, statute vests in Wakf Board absolute power to sell, gift, mortgage, exchange or lease wakf land in consonance with statutory provisions. Since there is no chal- lenge to the notification dated 29.08.1970 issued by the Government of India and the suit filed in the year 2008 is liable to be dismissed. No other point has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Civil Revision stands dismissed. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE DECEMBER 05, 2011 sham