C. R. No. 134 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 134 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : January 29, 2010 Jaswant Singh and others .... Petitioners Vs. Punjab Wakf Board, Ambala Cantt and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Vinod K. Kataria, Advocate for the applicant-petitioners. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : C. M. No. 1850-C-II of 2010 : This is application for impleading legal representatives of Nirmal Singh – plaintiff no.3 (since deceased), who died during the pendency of the suit before the Wakf Tribunal. It is alleged that widow and two sons of the deceased, as mentioned in paragraph 2 of the application, are his only legal heirs. The application is accompanied by affidavit. Accordingly, the application is allowed, subject to all just exceptions and persons mentioned in paragraph 2 of the application are permitted to be brought on record as legal representatives of Nirmal Singh – plaintiff no.3 (since deceased), for the purpose of this revision petition. C. R. No. 134 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Main Case : Plaintiffs no.1, 2, 4 and 5 have filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 83 (9) of the Wakf Act, 1995 (in short – the Act), assailing judgment and decree dated 12.10.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge/Wakf Tribunal, Moga, thereby dismissing the suit filed by petitioners and Nirmal Singh (since deceased and now represented by proforma respondents no. 5 to 7). The plaintiffs alleged that their predecessor Buta Singh was allotted the suit land on lease by its owner Punjab Wakf Board – respondent no.1 in the year 1987-88 vide letter dated 25.03.1988. Buta Singh reclaimed the land and made improvements in it by spending Rs.2,00,000/- and also installed electric motor of 7.5 BHP. Buta Singh had been paying rent/lease money of the land to respondent no.1. After death of Buta Singh in the year 1998, petitioners have been in possession of the suit land. However, officials of the Punjab Wakf Board started harassing the plaintiffs. Thereupon, they filed civil suit and during pendency of the suit, Wakf Board vide letter dated 23.11.2001, approved lease of the suit land in favour of the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the plaintiffs paid rent to Wakf Board for 1999-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03. The plaintiffs are thus lessees in exclusive possession of the suit land. However, respondent no.1 Board issued letter dated 30.01.2004 during pendency of the instant suit, which is illegal and null and void. The defendants have been threatening to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land and to cancel the lease deed. The plaintiffs accordingly sought declaration that they are lessees under Punjab Wakf Board over the suit land measuring 50 kanals and letter dated 30.01.2004 issued by respondent no.1 is illegal and null and void and liable to be set aside. The plaintiffs also claimed permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit land forcibly C. R. No. 134 of 2010 (O&M) 3 and illegally. The defendants, in their written statement, pleaded that the plaintiffs are not lessees of the Wakf Board over the suit land as their lease deed had already been cancelled on 30.01.2004. It was also pleaded that as per Qabuliyat Nama dated 05.09.2001executed by the plaintiffs, they agreed to remain in possession of the suit land till 2002 only. Thereafter, the plaintiffs have no right to remain in possession of the suit land as the lease period has already expired. Respondent no.1 being owner of the suit property has right to deal with it in any manner. Respondent no.1 had reserved the suit property for burial purpose for Muslim community and it was so conveyed to the plaintiffs vide letter dated 30.01.2004, which is legal and valid. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Wakf Tribunal, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 12.10.2009, has dismissed the suit. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision petition has been preferred. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that lease deed in favour of the plaintiffs has not been cancelled and therefore, respondent no.1 Wakf Board has no right to take possession of the suit land. The contention is completely devoid of any merit. Learned counsel for the petitioners himself stated that lease in favour of the plaintiffs was for three years since 1999 till 2002. Consequently, the said lease lapsed by efflux of time in the year 2002 and was therefore, not required to be cancelled thereafter. Inspite thereof, respondent no.1 issued letter dated 30.01.2004 to the plaintiffs regarding cancellation of the lease deed. After expiry of lease period in favour of the plaintiffs, which has admittedly expired, the plaintiffs have no right whatsoever to continue in possession of the suit land. Even on pointed inquiry, learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to state any right of the plaintiffs to continue in possession of the suit land. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the petitioners C. R. No. 134 of 2010 (O&M) 4 had applied for renewal of the lease deed for further period. This contention does not entitle the plaintiffs to continue in possession of the suit land, when respondent no.1 Wakf Board, which is admittedly owner of the suit land, has not extended the lease in favour of the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that respondent no.1 has pleaded that the suit property has now been reserved as graveyard for Muslim community, but in fact, respondent no.1 has leased out the suit land to one Anayat Mohammad. However, the contention is not substantiated by any pleading or evidence on record and is therefore, without any substance. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to judgment Annexure P-12 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision arising out of proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, learned counsel for the petitioners could not refer to anything from the said judgment to depict that respondent no.1 has leased out the suit land to Anayat Mohammad. In any event, even if it be assumed for the sake of argument, that respondent no.1 has leased out the suit land to Anayat Mohammad, the plaintiffs have no right whatsoever to continue in possession of the suit land. On the other hand, the plaintiffs have already continued in possession of the suit land for more than seven years even after expiry of their lease period. For the reasons recorded herein above, I find no merit in the instant revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed in limine. January 29, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE