TEHSILDAR Vs. ROSHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the State of Haryana against the judgment and decree dated 19.9.1988; whereby suit for permanent injunction of the plaintiffs was decreed and the said judgment and decree has been upheld in appeal by the Addl. District Judge, Gurgaon vide judgment and decree dated 15.5.1989.

(2.) The case of the plaintiffs-respondents was that they were in possession of 4 kanals 13 marlas of land comprised in Khewat No.931 Khata No.1143 Khasra No.302 situated in the revenue estate of village Jharsa, District Gurgaon as tenant under the Punjab Wakf Board, Ambala Cantt. and the Board had granted a patta in favour of the plaintiffs. It was alleged that in view of the some wrong entries in the revenue record in the column of ownership, the defendants were putting the suit land to auction by way of open bid and had issued a notice for auction of the same and auction had been fixed for 10.11.1983. The said suit was resisted by the State-appellants initially on various grounds including non joinder of necessary parties which led to the Punjab Wakf Board being impleaded as defendant no.3 and amended plaint and written statement came to be filed wherein the jurisdiction to try the suit as envisaged under Sections 36 and 46 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 was challenged. It was contended on merits that the suit property had been owned by Muslim evacuees and after the migration the same vested in the custodian by operation of law and, thus, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred for deciding the question of title. It was further alleged that the Punjab Wakf Board had no right, title or interest in the suit property and the defendants were fully competent to dispose it of in accordance with rules and law and the auction had not been held because of the stay granted by the Court. It is alleged that the suit land was agricultural land and was not being used as Kabristan.

(3.) The Punjab Wakf Board admitted the claim of the plaintiffs and contended that the Board had granted lease in favour of the plaintiffs and the defendant-State had no right to auction the suit property. The replication to the written statement filed by defendants No.1 and 2 was filed reiterating the version in the plaint.