LAWS(P&H)-2013-7-1363

SUKHMANDAR SINGH Vs. PUNJAB WAKF BOARD AND OTHERS

Decided On July 25, 2013
SUKHMANDAR SINGH Appellant
V/S
Punjab Wakf Board And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff-Sukhmander Singh has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning judgment dated 18.9.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rupnagar as Wakf Tribunal thereby dismissing the suit filed by the petitioner. Case of the plaintiff is that he had taken the suit land measuring 84 kanals 2 marlas on lease from defendant No.1-Punjab Wakf Board (in short 'the Board') vide Patta Order dated 16.3.2002. The land was in illegal possession of defendant Nos.2 to 10. Defendant No.1 had initiated ejectment proceedings in Court against defendant Nos. 2 to 10, who were not paying rent to defendant No.1 since 1995-96. The plaintiff paid arrears of rent of defendant Nos.2 to 10 since 1995-96 till 2000-2001 amounting to Rs. 79,200/- and also paid Rs. 11,000/- as costs of the litigation between defendant No.1-Board and defendant Nos.2 to 10. He also gave donation of Rs. 1,15,000/- to the Board and also paid Rs. 41,500/- as lease money for 2001-02. The plaintiff also paid lease money for subsequent years.

(2.) However, defendant No.1 was unable to take possession of the suit land from defendant Nos.2 to 10. Defendant No.1 then colluded with defendant Nos.2 to 10 and other persons to harm the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed possession of the suit land as lessee and also claimed permanent injunction. Defendant No.1 in its written statement admitted Patta Order in favour of the plaintiff and payments made by him. It was, however, pleaded that allotment of land was made on yearly basis and the plaintiff committed default in paying the lease money after 2001-02 and, therefore, he is not entitled to possession and injunction. Defendant Nos.2 to 5 controverted the averments of plaintiff and pleaded that he has no right to claim possession of the suit land. Defendant No.1 itself is not in possession of the suit land. Defendant Nos.2 to 5 also pleaded that they were not in possession of the suit land nor they were lessees thereof. Defendant Nos.6 to 10 were proceeded against ex parte. Learned Wakf Tribunal vide judgment and decree dated 18.9.2009 has dismissed the plaintiff's suit.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed this revision petition.