PUNJAB WAKF BOARD Vs. IQBAL CHAND & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF -Punjab Wakf Board has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with proviso to Sub -section (9) of Section 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995, assailing judgment and decree dated 19.12.2005 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda as Wakf Tribunal, thereby dismissing suit filed by plaintiff for possession of the suit plot. Plaintiff's case is that suit plot measuring 224 Square Yards is part of khasra No. 2468/2 min and is part of Wakf Property vesting in the plaintiff -Board. Defendant No. 1 -Iqbal Chand, who was initially the sole defendant in the suit, was in unauthorized possession thereof.

(2.) DEFENDANTS No. 2 to 4 (sons of Iqbal Chand -defendant No. 1) were subsequently impleaded because defendant No. 1 pleaded that defendants No. 2 to 4 had purchased the suit plot from Harvinder Singh vide sale deed dated 20.12.1996 and Harvinder Singh had purchased it from previous owner Gurjant Singh and accordingly defendants No. 2 to 4 were owners in possession of the suit plot which is part of khasra No. 2467 and not of khasra No. 2468/2 min. Defendants in their written statement raised the aforesaid defence and also pleaded in the alternative that defendants No. 2 to 4 have become owners of the suit plot by adverse possession.

(3.) THERE is no evidence to depict that suit plot is part of khasra No. 2468/2 min which is claimed to be property of plaintiff Wakf Board. The defendants in their written statement specifically pleaded that suit plot is part of khasra No. 2467 and is not part of khasra No. 2468/2 min. Naib Tehsildar, Bathinda was appointed Local Commissioner to report whether the disputed property is part of khasra No. 2468/2 or khasra No. 2467. The Local Commissioner submitted his report that there was densely populated area at the spot in khasra Nos. 2467 and 2468 and around the same and there was also no pucca point available and therefore demarcation could not be conducted. However, trial Court again directed the Local Commissioner to comply with the order. Thereupon Local Commissioner again submitted the report that the land which falls in khasra No. 2468 owned by Punjab Wakf Board is located in densely populated area. Total area of khasra No. 2468 is 96 bighas 16 biswas. There are two storied and three storied buildings in the area. No pucca point was available nor masavi of the area was available. Without relevant documents and pucca points, demarcation was not possible. It is thus apparent that in the absence of demarcation, it cannot be said that suit plot is part of khasra No. 2468/2 min. The defendants raised specific plea in the written statement that suit plot is part of khasra No. 2467 and not of khasra No. 2468/2 min. Plaintiff's whole claim is based on the averment that suit plot is part of khasra No. 2468/2 min. However, the plaintiff has not been able to prove that suit plot is part of khasra No. 2468/2. In view of the aforesaid, without going into any other aspect of the case, it is held that plaintiff has failed to prove that it is owner of the suit plot. Consequently, suit of the plaintiff has been rightly dismissed by the Wakf Tribunal. There is no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in impugned judgment of the Wakf Tribunal nor the same is based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence on record. Consequently, the said judgment does not warrant interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India or in exercise of revisional power under proviso to Sub -section (9) of Section 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995. The revision petition is meritless and is accordingly dismissed.