SULOCHNA Vs. JASBIR SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order of mine shall dispose of two revision petitions bearing Nos. 1757 and 2135 of 2011.

(2.) Petitioner/defendant No. 3 - Sulochana is aggrieved of the dismissal of the judgment and decree dated 27.10.2010 (Annexure P -1) rendered by the Wakf Tribunal decreeing the suit for declaration and permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs by declaring them to be in possession of the suit land on the ground that proprietors of Shamlat -deh of village Patti Dogar and revenue entries in favour of defendants have been declared to be wrong, illegal, null and void and not binding upon the rights of plaintiffs and further injunction restraining the defendants from interfering into the possessory and proprietary rights of plaintiffs over the suit property.

(3.) Mr. Arnav K. Sood and Mr. Jai Bhagwan, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners submit that suit, aforementioned was filed at the instance of respondent No. 1 to 15/plaintiffs on the ground that they are owners in possession of the suit land, i.e., agricultural land measuring 74 kanals 18 marlas comprised in khewat No. 214/196 min, khatauni No. 351, 352, khewat No. 135/1, 136/2, situated within the revenue Estate of Dogran Patti, Tehsil and District Kaithal, as per jamabandi for the year 1992 -93. They are proprietors of the aforementioned village. Suit land being Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Zare Khewat and respondents No. 1 to 15/plaintiffs are in exclusive possession of the suit land as co -sharers without payment of any rent to anybody for the last more than 30 years and the revenue entries in favour of petitioner/defendants No. 3 to 5 in possession of the suit land being wrong, illegal, null, void and at their back and the mutation Nos. 1400 and 1707 were also totally wrong, illegal and denied. The Wakf Tribunal decreed the suit, without noticing the fact that vide Gazette Notification published on 19.12.1970, the land measuring 65 kanals out of the suit land is on lease with defendants No. 3 to 5 and revenue entries are also in their favour and S.S. Model School Kaithal. The plaintiffs have attempted to encash the old revenue entries in their favour as earlier the same land out of the suit land was in their possession as licensee only upto 1988 -89, vide lease deed dated 13.4.1987. The suit land is Kabristan which has been held to be a public graveyard and it vests in public, constitute a Wakf and it cannot be divested by non -user and continue to remain same, in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syed Moh. Salie Labbai (Dead) by LRs and others v/s. Mohd. Hanifa (Dead) by LRs and others : AIR 1976 SC 1569. The Wakf Tribunal has gravely erred in holding that defendants have failed to prove the dedication of the suit land for religious purposes, whereas, revenue record and entries thereon show the property as Makbuja Ahle Islam which means for religious purposes. It is settled law that revenue record has presumption as per Sec. 44 of the Land Revenue Act, until and unless, revenue record is rebutted. The defendants have failed to rebut the same by placing on record the documentary evidence. The Wakf Tribunal also failed to consider the documents, licence deed (Ex. D4) and Ex. D7/C, Kabuliatnama, which is irresistible admission of ownership of defendant No. 3. Further relies upon the judgment rendered by this Court in Civil Revision No. 876 of 2012 titled as Jai Kishan Saini and another v/s. Haryana Wakf Board, Ambala decided on 22.08.2013 holding that the notification declaring the property Wakf under Sec. 5, though may not be binding, but it follows a particular procedure which obtains relevance as to what the notification ultimately states. They further submitted that publication was effected under Sec. 5 of the Act, which was preceded by preliminary survey of Wakf under Sec. 4. Once a property is notified as a Wakf, it shall be perfectly legitimate for the Wakf Board to exercise right over the property as a Wakf and thus, prays for setting aside of the impugned judgment and decree. They further submit that sale deed dated 12.05.1969 (Ex. P3), relied upon by the respondent -plaintiffs is in respect of the land measuring 15 kanals 19 marlas bearing khasra No. 74/11/1, whereas, notification is in respect of khasra No. 136, thus, the plaintiffs have not been able to connect the property alleged to have been purchased vis   -vis property owned by Wakf and this fact has not been addressed, thus, there is travesty of justice.