Civil Revision No. 454 of 2006 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 454 of 2006 Date of decision: 7.12.2009 Punjab Wakf Board ......petitioner Versus Indian Red Cross Society and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. B.R.Mahajan, Advocate. for the petitioner. Mr.Surinder Garg, Advocate, for the respondents. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for possession, which was dismissed by the Punjab Wakf Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal) vide judgment and decree dated 13.8.2005. Hence, the present revision petition under Proviso to Section 83 (9) of the Wakf Act, 1995 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the Tribunal in para Nos. 1 to 7 of its judgment, are as under:- “1. Plaintiff, Punjab Wakf Board, a body corporate Civil Revision No. 454 of 2006 2 (herein the plaintiff Board) has brought this suit for possession in respect of the property as detailed and described in the head note of the plaint with reference to its boundaries and khasra numbers, situate within the revenue limits of village Haji Rattan, Bathinda, Tehsil and District Bathinda. 2. It is the case of the plaintiff-Board that in the suit property a Working Women Hostel has been constructed as depicted in the site plan attached with the plaint and the same is the property of Khangah Haji Ratten, Bathinda and vests in the plaintiff Board. It was published in the Govt. Gazette notification dated 7th day of August 1971. 3. The defendants are alleged to be in the unauthorised possession of the suit property in which they have constructed the Working Women Hostel illegally for the last more than 10 years. The site of the hostal was never got on lease by the defendants nor the same was ever acquired by them and therefore, the possession of the defendants over the suit property is illegal, unauthorised and against the rights of the plaintiff Board. 4. The plaintiff Board through its Field staff has as also the Estate Officer, Bathinda requested the Civil Revision No. 454 of 2006 3 defendants number of times either to become the lessee of the plaintiff Board or acquire the land, but they made a refusal. A notice dated 19.5.2001 was also sent by the Wakf Board through its counsel to the defendants in that regard, but they failed to accede to the request of the plaintiff Board. A letter bearing endorsement No.DRC/984 under the signatures of the Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda was written to the Administrator of the plaintiff Board with copy to the Estate Officer of the plaintiff Board at Bathinda so as to exempt the defendants from paying any lease money or in the alternative to convey the terms of the lease. Against the plaintiff Board through its Estate Officer requested the defendants to present their proposal regarding the terms of the lease, but they failed to do so. Accordingly, the plaintiff Board filed the instant suit. 5. The notice of the suit was issued against the defendants. Only defendant No.1 has contested the claim of plaintiff whereas defendant No.2 has been proceeded against ex parte. 6. In the written statement filed by defendant No.1, it has raised preliminary objections inter alia that the plaintiff Board has got no locus-standi/cause of action to file the suit against the defendants; that the Civil Revision No. 454 of 2006 4 suit is barred by limitation; that the suit has not been properly valued for purpose of court fee and jurisdiction; that the suit has not been filed through a competent person; that the suit is barred under principles of resjudicata under Section 11 of the CPC; that the plaintiff Board is estopped in filing it by its act, conduct and acquiescence ; that the suit is bad for non joinder of the Union of India and Gurnanak Quincentenary celebration Committee and that the suit of the plaintiff being false and frivolous is liable to be dismissed with special costs. As regards the facts of the case the defendant denied if the suit property vests in the plaintiff Board under the Punjab Wakf Act, 1995 (for short the Act). The notification declaring the suit property as 'evacuee property' is not binding on the defendant. The mere Gazette Notification does not bind the defendant who is in possession of the suit property as its owner. 7. It is further averred by the defendant that the land in suit was owned and possessed by Gurunanak Sarai run by Gurunanak Society with the help of Govt. aid and therefore, the same is known as Gurunanak Sarai of the government. However, in the year 1969 when the Govt. was celebrating Guru Nanak Civil Revision No. 454 of 2006 5 Quincentenary, Gurunanak Society handed over the suit property to the defendant to raise a construction of the memorial building. At that time, the construction could not be completed for want of funds. The Guru Nanak Quincentenary, Gurunanak Celebration Committee handed over possession of the incomplete building comprised of a Hall, Varandah etc. In the year 1977-78 the Govt. of India sanctioned a working Women Hostel at Bathinda and the project was allotted by the District Administration to the defendant No.1. The defendant approached the Guru Nanak Quincentenary, Gurunanak Celebration Committee to hand over the incomplete building along with plot for completing the Working Women Hostel and the committee having accepted the request of the defendant handed over the possession. The defendant approached the Govt. of India to sanction the gran-in- aid for completing the construction of the Working Women Hostel 75% cost of the construction amounting to Rs.12,48,000/- was given by the Govt. of India while the remaining 25% i.e. Rs.4,16,000/- was contributed by the Punjab Govt. with the help of which the defendant raised the construction of the Hostel, also Civil Revision No. 454 of 2006 6 having spent Rs.6,70,000/- more in the raising of the boundary wall, interior roads, tubewell and the staff quarters. The building of the hostel was completed by the defendant in the year 1980-81 having spent an amount of Rs.23,40,000/-. In that way the plaintiff has got no concern with the suit property. The plaintiff Board is also in the knowledge of the said facts. It is denied if the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the suit property. After denouncing the other averments of the plaint, going against the defendant, it was prayed to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff.” In order to determine the claim of the plaintiff, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit land? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 5. Whether the suit is barred by time? OPD Civil Revision No. 454 of 2006 7 6. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 7. Whether the suit is not filed through authorised person? OPD 8. Whether the suit is barred by principles of constructive resjudicata under Section 11 CPC? OPD 9. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 10. Relief. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that there is no ground for interference by this Court. The plaintiff Wakf Board had filed the suit for possession in respect of the property in dispute. In this regard, the appellant Board only proved on record a copy of the jamabandi Ex.P-2 for the year 1994-95, in which the suit land is recorded to be owned by Khangah Haji Rattan Sahib and notification dated 7.8.1971. However, no record was proved by the appellant-Board to show that the suit property was ever evacuee property. No evidence was led by the appellant as to how the property in dispute could be declared as Wakf property. There was also nothing on record that the custodian had ever transferred the property in dispute in favour of the plaintiff Board. The Board had also failed to establish that the property in dispute had ever been dedicated to the Board. In these circumstances, the learned Tribunal rightly held that the suit filed by Civil Revision No. 454 of 2006 8 the Board was not maintainable and dismissed the same. Hence, the impugned order does not suffer from any material irregularity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE December 07, 2009 anita