IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: January 28, 2010 Civil Revision No. 2554 of 2009 Harvinder Singh and others. …Petitioners Versus Punjab WAKF Board. …Respondent Civil Revision No. 2555 of 2009 Harbans Singh and others. …Petitioners Versus Punjab WAKF Board. …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND. Present: Mr. P.S. Khurana, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Denesh Goyal, Advocate, for the respondent. S.D. Anand, J. The respondent – plaintiff / Punjab WAKF Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) filed a suit against the petitioners. The pure and simple averment made at the trial C.R. No. 2554 of 2009 was that the property in suit is a property of duly notified Wakf character and the petitioners are in unlawful possession thereof. The suit was resisted by the petitioners by averring that they are in lawful possession of that land as Chakotadars since the time of their ancestors in whose favour the Board had executed a `pattanama’ and `Tamilknama’. Reliance, in support of the averment, was placed upon the revenue entries, which record their possession on the land in suit. The suit came to be decreed by the learned Tribunal, Wakf Act, Ludhiana. The petitioners – tenants are in revision against it. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, does not dispute that the proprietary title of the land in suit does, in fact, vest in the respondent – Board. However, he vehemently argues that the petitioners herein cannot be described to be in unlawful possession of that land in view of the averments aforementioned. At the same time, he is also not in a position to dispute that notices (Ex.P5 and P9) under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act have already been issued to the petitioners for vacation of the land in suit. The present is a case wherein the petitioners have made a precise averment that a pattanama’ and `Tamilknama’ (in favour of their ancestors) is inexistence. That document has not seen the light of the day till date. An adverse inference 2 C.R. No. 2554 of 2009 has, thus, to be drawn against the petitioners. In the light of the fact that the averred documentation has been withheld from the Court and also the fact that the petitioners herein have not been able to produce even a single receipt with which they might have obtained qua payment of chakota amount, it is apparent that the presumption of correctness attachable to the revenue entries stands rebutted. The present is, thus, a case in which there is not even a single document to buttress the plea raised by the petitioners herein that they are in lawful possession of the land in suit. The jamabandi entries cannot, by any stretch of interpretation, be held to be adequate enough to record a finding that the petitioners herein are in lawful possession of the land in suit. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be devoid of merit and is ordered to be dismissed accordingly. The stay order dated 19.03.2007 shall stand vacated. The vacation of the stay order shall be intimated to the learned Trial Court forthwith. January 28, 2010 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 3