IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1557 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 15.2.2011 Nasru … Appellant Versus Haryana Wakf Board and others …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Rajesh Lamba, Advocate for the appellant. Sabina, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that he was a Fakir by caste and was in possession of the suit land measuring 22 kanals 07 marlas as Bhondedar, Bila-Lagan Bawajah Khidmat Takia for more than 50/60 years. Prior to the plaintiff, his father had cultivated the suit land. After the death of his father, plaintiff had been cultivating the suit land. The suit land was allotted to Nannu father of the plaintiff during consolidation proceedings in lieu of old khasra Nos.388, 390 and 391 along with gair mumkin Takiya as Bhondedar. Defendant No.5 had never been in possession of the suit land. On 4th December, 1997, plaintiff came to know that suit land had been mutated in the name of Gram Panchayat-defendant No.3 and thereafter in the name of Punjab Wakf Board-defendant No.1. Defendant Nos.1 and 3 were trying to dis-possess the plaintiff from the suit land on the basis of illegal mutation entries. Defendant No.1 in its written statement denied the contention in the plaint. It was averred that answering defendants were owner in possession of the suit land. Mutation was sanctioned in favour of the answering defendants on 19.2.1993 in open ‘Jalsa Aam’. Defendant No.3 in it written statement took the same plea as those taken by defendant No.1. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1 Whether plaintiff is in possession of the suit land as Bhondedar Bila Lagan Bawajah Khidmat Takia and has RSA No.1557 of 2010 (O&M) become owner of it by virtue of provision of Punjab Village Common Land Act, 1961? OPP 2. If issue no.1 is proved whether plaintiff is entitled for injunction as prayed for? OPD 3. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 5. Whether Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPD 6. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD 7. Whether the suit is bad for non-service of notice under Section 89 of the Walf Act upon defendant no.1?OPD 8. Whether plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his own act and conduct? OPD 9. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 10. Whether suit is liable to be stayed under section 10 of CPC? OPD. 11. Relief.” The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 30.8.2008, decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendant No.1 preferred an appeal and the same was allowed by the first appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 9.3.2010. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. The learned first appellate court has observed that as per the revenue record available on the file, Karim Bux was Bhondedar qua the suit land. Nannu son of Imam Bux has been described as gair murasi qua the land. Vide mutation Exhibit P-14, suit land had been mutated in the name of defendant No.1. In the copy of Jamabandi Exhibit P-1, Punjab Wakf Board was described as owner of the suit land whereas Karim Bux described as Bhondedar. Nasru son of Nannu had been described as gair marusi. As per the gazette notification Exhibit D-3, suit land was declared a Wakf property as the same was being used as grave yard, Takia. It has been further observed by the 2 RSA No.1557 of 2010 (O&M) first appellate court that plaintiff had failed to establish that he had ever been given the Bhondedar rights qua the suit land. Plaintiff had no relationship with Karim Bux who was described as Bhondedar qua the suit land in the revenue record. Plaintiff and his father had been described as gair murasi. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to counter the said observations. In these circumstances, learned first appellate court rightly held that the suit of the plaintiff was liable to fail as the plaintiff had failed to prove his case. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge 15.02.2011 sd 3