IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.3345 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 7.12.2010 Devi Bai and others ....Petitioners Versus Punjab Wakf Board and ors. ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. C.M.No. 22439-CII of 2010 After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, the application is allowed. The order dated 19.8.2010 is recalled and the revision petition is restored to its original number. C.R.No.3345 of 2009 The petitioners were plaintiffs in the suit which was filed against the Punjab Wakf Board claiming that ever since the time of their predecessors-in-interest they were in cultivating possession of land measuring 23 kanals and that in the year 1974-75 the Wakf Board executed a lease deed regarding the land in dispute in favour of Jumia Devi and Urmila Devi and on the basis of which Jumia Devi and Urmila Devi made efforts to obtain possession of the land in dispute and they tried to seek the help of the local police in this regard C.R.No.3345 of 2009 (O&M) -2- also. A civil suit was filed by Jumia Devi and Urmila Devi for a decree of possession on the basis of lease deed and Punjab Wakf Board was also a party in that suit. The suit was dismissed on 6.9.1980 holding that the Punjab Wakf Board had no right, title or interest in the suit property and the lease deed executed in favour of Jumia Devi etc. was held to be illegal. A civil appeal was filed by Jumia Devi etc. against the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners which was also dismissed by the Addl.District Judge, Karnal vide judgment and decree dated 6.3.1981. The findings of the Addl.District Judge have become final. It was further pleaded that Halqa Patwari on the strength of some misrepresentation persuaded them to plead that the land vests in Punjab Wakf Board and that the petitioners have not given the lease money with effect from 1977. After the death of the father of the petitioners, Sawan Ram the petitioners came in cultivating possession and that respondents are demanding lease money. The petitioners thereafter sold 4 kanals land for a consideration of Rs.1.25 lac and an amount of Rs.75,000/- was obtained from the petitioners by the Rent Controller as payment to the Punjab Wakf Board as donation. A receipt dated 30.3.1996 for Rs.9,000/- of lease money for the period from 1977-78 till 1994-95 regarding this land measuring 23 kanals was issued in their favour. Subsequent receipt of Rs.10,120/- was also issued on the same date as payment of lease money for the year 1995-96 regarding the land in dispute and thus an amount of Rs.19,120/- has been received as lease money after the payment of Rs.75,000/- as donation. Likewise another sum of Rs.75,000/- was also obtained on 29.8.1997. It is the C.R.No.3345 of 2009 (O&M) -3- case of the petitioners that such amounts were paid under undue pressure of the Rent Controller and the Halqa Patwari who had played a fraud upon them. They thus prayed for issuance of a decree of mandatory injunction directing respondents No.1 and 2 to pay an amount of Rs.24,120/- received by them along with interest @ 24% per annum and also prayed that they be restrained from interfering in their peaceful possession. The suit was resisted by the Punjab Wakf Board who pleaded that they were in possession and the lease deed had been executed in favour of the petitioners qua the land in dispute and the lease money had also been paid by the petitioners. The receipt of an amount of Rs.75,000/- was denied and it was prayed that the suit be dismissed with costs. Remaining respondents No.3 to 6 filed separate written statement and contended that an area of 5 kanals which was allegedly sold by the petitioners was leased out to them vide receipt dated 26.7.1997 for a consideration of Rs.2,600/- and that they are in actual physical possession of the area measuring 5 kanals. They admitted that the petitioners were in possession of 23 kanals but denied the possession on 5 kanals. On the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed :- 1. Whether the suit land vests in Punjab Wakf Board?OPD 2. Whether defendants No.1 and 2 were competent to release the suit land in favour of defendants No.3 to 6?OPD C.R.No.3345 of 2009 (O&M) -4- 3. Whether defendants No.1 and 2 have delivered the possession of the suit land to defendants No.3 to 6?OPD 4. Whether the defendants are not liable to return Rs.24,120/- to the plaintiff?OPD 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 7. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his own act and conduct?OPD 8. Relief. The Tribunal upon appreciation of the material before it concluded that the land vests in the Punjab Wakf Board and disbelieved the plea of the petitioners. It has come on record by way of documentary evidence in the shape of revenue record and oral testimony of PW1 and PW2 that the land belonged to the Muslims of village Dabraki and after their migration it was being used by Mohammadans of the village for religious purposes like graveyard etc. The notification Ex.D2 also reveals that the land vests in the Punjab Wakf Board. The petitioners have not been able to show any material which can off set the presumption of truth attached to these documents. In such an eventuality it cannot be said that the land does not belong to the Punjab Wakf Board and the plea of the petitioners thus has to be negated. The Tribunal was thus right in declining the prayer for recovery of the amount which the petitioners plead that C.R.No.3345 of 2009 (O&M) -5- they had earnestly paid to the Punjab Wakf Board under the strength of some misrepresentation. The prayer for recovery as mandatory injunction was thus rightly granted. The petitioners, however, admittedly being in possession of the land can continue to enjoy the possession only as long as they adhere to the terms of the lease deed and untill such arrangement is terminated in accordance with law. No ground to interfere. Dismissed. 7.12.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss