The judgment establishes the significance of non-use in altering ownership, the presumption of truth in revenue records, and the importance of evidence in determining land use.

Swatanter Kumar, J.

1. This is a petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order of the District Development and Panchayat Officer-cum-Collector, Hoshiarpur dated 24.3.1982 and that of the Appellate Authority-Joint Director, Panchayat, Punjab dated 25.11.1982.

2. No body appears on behalf of the respondents. Keeping in view the pendency of this petition for a considerable number of years. I see no reason to defer hearing.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length.

4. Gram Panchayat, Salehrian Kalan, Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur, had filed an application through its Sarpanch under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1981, for declaration that the land in dispute has vested and is owned by the Gram Panchayat of the village and Punjab Wakf Board has no title or interest in the land which is shamlat deh.

5. Notice was issued on which the Wakf Board has filed the reply. Parties led evidence and vide order dated 24.3.1982, the learned District Development and Panchayat Officer-cum-Collector held as under:-

".... I have gone through the record and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for both the parties. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the respondents that the property in dispute is Wakf property as there is described to be a Masjid and Qabristan in the land in dispute according to the entries in the jamabandi placed on the file and that it has been properly described as such in the records of the Punjab Wakf Board according to the Central Government Wakf Act, 1954. The learned counsel for the appellants has on the other hand urged that there is no Masjid at site and there is no grave of any Muselemman in the land in dispute. There are on the other hand 60 valuable Mango trees in the land which the Wakf Board is trying to illegally utilise for their purpose. There is no doubt that in the jamabandi the property is described as gair mumkin Qabristan, but it has been proved by the evidence of the applicants witnesses consistently that there is no grave yard in existence at the site now and there is no mosque either. It has also been proved that there are mango trees in it and the land is more a mango garden. It is an admitted fact that there is no Muslim living in the village since partition. A half hearted attempt made by the respondents witnesses to show that there were some Gujjar Mussalmans in the village does not carry conviction because they have not been able to name any such, Musalman residing there. It is, therefore, fully proved on the file that the land in dispute, which might have been a Qabristan at some time before partition is no more used as Qabristan, and there is no graveyard or mosque in it. Under these circumstances, this application must succeed and it is hereby declared that 10 kanals and 15 marlas of land described above vests in and belongs to the Gram Panchayat Salehrian Kalan".

6. This order was assailed in appeal before the Joint Director, Panchayats, who affirmed the findings arrived at by the lower authority and sustained the order. Aggrieved there from, the present petition has been filed.

7. Mr. Palli, learned counsel for the petitioner while relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Syed Mohd State Salie Labbai (Dead) by LRs and Ors. v. Mohd Haneefa (Dead) by LRs and Ors., A.I.R. 1976 Supreme Court 1569, contended that once a disputed land was shown as qabristan, then it would continue to be qabristan and consequently, is the property of the Wakf Board. Findings to the contrary recorded by the authorities are thus vitiated in law.

8. Secondly, it is contended that the issue ought to have been decided by the authorities whether the land had vested in the Gram Panchayat or not and placing onus of the issue upon the applicant before the authorities and it was for the authorities to decide issue of treating that as if onus was upon the respondent/petitioner