CHUNNI LAL (DEAD) Vs. PRESIDENT, ANJUMAN ISLAMIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dtd. 13/8/2021 passed by Presiding Ofcers of Chhattisgarh Rajya Waqfs Tribunal, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as "Waqf Tribunal "), whereby the Waqf Tribunal allowed the application fled under Order 8 Rule 1(3) read with Sec. 151 of CPC fled by defendant No. 2 and dismissed two applications fled by petitioner/ plaintif under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC dtd. 5/9/2019 and 3/3/2020.

(2.) Mr. H.B. Agrawal, learned Senior counsel for petitioners would submit that petitioner is in possession of the land bearing khasra No. 209, plot No. 6/1 measuring 11000 sqft. situated at tahsil and district Dhamtari by raising building construction since year 1972. The said land was recorded as Government land in revenue records. Respondent No. 1 was not having the patta of the aforementioned land issued by the State Government but even then Collector, Dhamtari vide its order dtd. 5/9/2009 has renewed the patta/ lease in its favour. The order of Collector was put to challenge in an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Raipur, division Raipur and after considering the entire facts and circumstances, grounds in appeal the order of Collector of renewal of patta over the land khasra No. 209 was set aside observing that renewal of patta/ lease is not in accordance with the law. The land in the revenue records is recorded as grass-land. Respondent No. 1 initially fled a civil suit for injunction before the Civil Judge, Class-I, Dhamtari. After issuance of notice, petitioner submitted a written statement as well as counter claim but subsequently the Civil Suit was withdrawn vide order dtd. 23/9/2013. The order of withdrawal of entire suit was challenged by petitioner before the appellate court. Petitioner received the notice by which he came to know that Respondent No. 1 has initiated proceeding before Respondent No. 2 for possession which was allowed in favour of Respondent No. 1 directing for hand over the possession of property in dispute and further calculated the rent from 1/4/1972 to 31/3/2013. The order was put to challenge before the Waqf Tribunal under Sec. 83 of the Waqf Act, 1955 on the grounds mentioned therein. In the proceedings before the Waqf Tribunal, Respondent No. 2 submitted its reply denying the facts pleaded. During the pendency of proceedings before the Waqf Tribunal, petitioner submitted an application under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC on 5/9/2019 for taking additional document on record which is the copy of plaint fled by Respondent No. 1 against the ofcials of State Government as also the written statement. Another application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC was also fled on 3/3/2020 for taking additional document on record which is judgment dtd. 26/3/2016 passed by Waqf Tribunal. He contended that in the frst application copy of plaint would show that petitioner was not a party to suit, hence, he was not aware about the proceedings. When he came to know about the proceedings fled by Respondent No. 1 in the year 2019, obtained certifed copy and fled an application immediately. Pleadings in the plaint fled by Respondent No. 1 mention that the land in question bearing plot No. 6/1 to 6/8 is a disputed land. In revenue records it is shown as the Government land. In the plaint, there is specifc mention of 11000 sqft of land, hence, the document is very much relevant and important for just decision of proceedings pending before the Waqf Tribunal. The second application was fled for taking additional document/ evidence on record of the judgment passed by Waqf Tribunal on 26/3/2016 in the petition fled by Respondent No. 1 against M/s Muzafar Hussain, wherein the Waqf Tribunal has also formulated the question with regard to land on plot No. 6/3 of khasra No. 209 whether to be Waqf property or not. Petitioner's documents are necessary for just decision of the case but the Waqf Tribunal only considering that the evidence of petitioner has already been closed and further erroneously recorded fnding that the documents are not so important, illegally rejected the application.

(3.) Mr. Manoj Pranjpe, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 opposing the submissions of learned counsel for petitioner would submit that it is for the petitioner/ plaintif to fle all the relevant documents which are to be relied by him along with the plaint itself showing them in the list of documents. Petitioner's evidence was closed and application submitted by petitioner was at highly belated stage. The Waqf Tribunal had rightly rejected the application even evaluated the importance of documents for the purpose of disposing of appeal pending before it. There is no illegality in the order passed by Waqf Tribunal, thus, writ petition is devoid of any substance which deserves to be dismissed. He placed his reliance upon the judgment between Shantilal vs. Battulal in W.P. No. 4085/2017 decided on 18/7/2017 by High Court of Madhya Pradesh, in support of his contention.