Civil Revision No.1750 of 2010(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.1750 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: June 3, 2011 Ranjit Singh .....Petitioner v. Punjab Wakf Board .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Malkeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.V.K.Kaushal, Advocate for the respondent. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 15.10.2009 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Wakf Tribunal, Amritsar, decreeing suit for possession filed by respondent- Punjab Wakf Board. Facts giving rise to the present revision petition are as under:- Respondent-Punjab Wakf Board filed a suit for possession of property in dispute duly described in the heading of the plaint, as per jamabandi for year 2001-2002 situated at Village Kotla Sultan Singh, Tehsil Amritsar-I, District Amritsar, on the plea that respondent-plaintiff is owner of the same. It is further contended that the said land was leased out to Shri Hari Singh son of Mian Singh upto 1984 and that the said lease period has already expired and the lease was not extended later on. Hari Singh has since expired and after his death petitioner-defendant is in unauthorised possession of the said land and that his possession is only that of trespasser. Civil Revision No.1750 of 2010(O&M) -2- Official of respondent-plaintiff made several requests to petitioner- defendant to vacate the land in dispute and hand over the possession to respondent-plaintiff but to no effect. Hence, petitioner-defendant was also liable to pay mesne profits for unauthorised use of occupation of the land in dispute @ Rs.1000/- per kanal per year for the period from 1985 onwards till the delivery of possession. Hence, the suit for decree for possession alongwith mesne profits for unauthorised use of occupation of the land in dispute. Petitioner-defendant filed written statement contesting the suit filed by respondent-plaintiff and denied the ownership of respondent- plaintiff. Specific plea has been taken that respondent-plaintiff is not owner of the land in dispute and having no concern with the same and that father of petitioner-defendant was in legal possession of suit land and after death of his father, he has become owner in possession of the same. Hence, it is denied that he is in unauthorised possession or that he is liable to pay mesne profits to respondent-plaintiff. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by learned Tribunal:- “(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession as prayed for? OPP (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits as prayed for ? OPP (3) Whether the suit is time barred? OPD (4) Whether the suit not maintainable? OPD (5) Whether the suit is not valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD Civil Revision No.1750 of 2010(O&M) -3- (6) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD (7) Relief.” Parties adduced evidence in support of their respective contentions. Learned Tribunal discussed issues no.1 and 2 together and decided the same in favour of respondent-plaintiff by holding that respondent-plaintiff is owner of the property in dispute and that petitioner- defendant is having no right to remain in possession of the same and that his possession is unauthorised and hence, he is liable to pay mesne profit @ Rs.1000/- per kanal per annum. Issue no.3 has been decided partly in favour of petitioner- defendant and partly in favour of respondent-plaintiff. Issues no.4 to 6 have also been decided in favour of respondent-plaintiff. As a consequent to findings on various issues, suit filed by respondent-plaintiff was decreed with cost for possession of the Wakf property in dispute and for recovery of mesne profits for its illegal use and occupation by petitioner-defendant. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned Tribunal. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- defendant that the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned Wakf Tribunal, Amritsar is without jurisdiction as Tribunal is having no jurisdiction to decide the dispute between lessor and lessee. It has been contended that petitioner-defendant is in possession of the land in dispute as Civil Revision No.1750 of 2010(O&M) -4- lessee since the year 1985, after the death of his father, who was inducted as lessee by Wakf Board and that he had also deposited rent in the Treasury vide sale receipt Ex.DW2/A dated 10.9.2009 and, however, he could not make the payment of rent to respondent-plaintiff as official of respondent- plaintiff refused to accept the same. He has also placed reliance upon Ramesh Gobindram (dead) through Lrs. v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf, 2010(2) RCR (R ) 266 (SC) and Board of Wakf West Bengal v. Anis Fatma Begum and another, 2011(1) RCR (Civil) 303. So far as legal proposition as held in the aforementioned judgments is concerned, there is no dispute. In later judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Board of Wakf West Bengal's case (supra), it was observed as under:- “14. Thus, the Wakf Tribunal can decide all disputes, questions or other matters relating to a Wakf or Wakf property. The words “any dispute, question or other matters relating to a Wakf or Wakf property” are, in our opinion, words of very wide connotation. Any dispute, question or other matters whatsoever and in whatever manner which arises relating to a Wakf or Wakf property can be decided by the Wakf Tribunal. The word ‘Wakf’ has been defined in Section 3 (r) of the Wakf Act, 1995 and hence once the property is found to be a Wakf property as defined in Section 3 (r), then any dispute, question or other matter relating to it should be agitated before the Wakf Tribunal.” In the present case, petitioner-defendant has denied title of respondent-plaintiff -Punjab Wakf Board. Rather he has claimed himself to Civil Revision No.1750 of 2010(O&M) -5- be owner in possession of the premises in dispute after death of his father. He has taken the plea that his father was in legal possession. He has not taken the plea that his father was in possession as lessee under respondent- plaintiff and that after death of his father he has come into possession as lessee. Hence, a dispute has been created as to whether property in dispute is a wakf property or not. Hence, said dispute can be decided by Wakf Tribunal only and the jurisdiction of Civil Court to decide the said question has been specifically barred. Hence, it cannot be said that the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned Tribunal is without jurisdiction. Learned Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the property in dispute is owned by respondent-plaintiff. Father of petitioner- plaintiff was in possession as lessee and after his death lease was never extended. No fresh lease deed was executed between petitioner-defendant and respondent-Wakf Board. Hence, possession of petitioner-defendant over the land in dispute, which is wakf property, has been rightly held to be unauthorised by learned Tribunal. Hence, in view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned Tribunal in passing the impugned order or that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. Moreover, law has been well settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others, 2003(6) SCC 675 : AIR 2003 SC 3044: 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147, that supervisory jurisdiction is not available to be exercised for indulging in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correcting the errors for drawing inference like a Court of Civil Revision No.1750 of 2010(O&M) -6- appeal. It has been observed as under:- “Be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless the following requirements are satisfied : (i) the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (ii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.” Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 3.6.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter? Yes/No.