CWP No. 6164 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 6164 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: April 06, 2011 Avtar Singh .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and others ........ RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. Vinod Sharma, Advocate, for Mr. Ranjan Lakhanpal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. Khasra Girdawari has been corrected in favour of Punjab Wakf Board vide order Annexure P-1 dated 28.06.2004 passed by Naib Tehsildar IInd Division, Morinda on the premise that land was given to Pritam Singh- father of the petitioner on lease. Pritam Singh did not pay chakota to Punjab Wakf Board for a number of years, due to which Punjab Wakf Board filed a case against Pritam Singh. During the pendency of the case, Pritam Singh died. Punjab Wakf Board withdrew the case and thereafter the land is in possession of Punjab Wakf Board. 2. Perusal of the order indicates that the site was inspected in the presence of respectables of the village and it was found that the land was vacant and thereafter was being ploughed by Punjab Wakf Board officials/employees. Considering the fact situation, the Girdawari has been corrected. Thereafter, petitioner-Avtar Singh s/o Pritam Singh filed appeal and revision petitions which have been dismissed by the Collector, CWP No. 6164 of 2011 2 Commissioner and Financial Commissioner vide orders Annexure P-2 dated 04.08.2004, Annexure P-3 dated 03.09.2004 and Annexure P-4 dated 22.04.2008 respectively. 3. By way of this petition, prayer has been made for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus for setting aside order Annexure P-4 dated 22.04.2008 passed by Financial Commissioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show as to how writ of mandamus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is maintainable for quashing of the order. There is no challenge to orders passed by the authorities subordinate to the Financial Commissioner viz. Annexures P-1 to P-3. 4. Learned counsel has not been able to show as to the period for which Pritam Singh did not pay lease money to the Punjab Wakf Board. It has not been shown as to how Avtar Singh became a tenant under the Punjab Wakf Board. Terms of lease have not been brought on record. 5. A civil writ petition is a suit which is required to be supplemented with the evidence on which the petitioner chooses to rely, in view of its nature. Not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed in case of a writ petition. When a writ petitioner raises a point of law which is required to be substantiated by facts, he must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and accompanying documents. If he is a respondent, the facts asserted are required to be proved from the written statement/counter affidavit and supporting documents. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or to the written statement/counter affidavit, as the case may be, the Court will not entertain the point. CWP No. 6164 of 2011 3 6. Learned counsel prays for withdrawal of the petition to file a petition with proper foundation and prayer. 7. Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. It is, however, made clear that in case a second petition is filed, it would be accepted only with a receipt indicating deposit of costs with the High Court Lawyers Welfare Fund in the sum of ` 5,000/-. 06.04.2011 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?