Back
2011 Supreme(P&H) 1284
2011 (3) PLR 647
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.
Ranjit Singh - Petitioner
Vs.
Punjab Wakf Board - Respondents
Civil Revision No.1750 of 2010(O&M)
Decided on: June 3, 2011
Mr. Malkeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. V.K. Kaushal, Advocate, for the respondent.
The jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal in deciding disputes relating to Wakf or Wakf property, as defined in Section 3(r) of the Wakf Act, 1995, and the limitations of supervisory jurisdiction in correcting errors of fact or law.
Headnote:
Wakf Property - Jurisdiction of Wakf Tribunal - Section 3(r) of the Wakf Act, 1995 - The court discussed the ownership of the property in dispute and the jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal in deciding the same. It highlighted the wide connotation of 'any dispute, question or other matters relating to a Wakf or Wakf property' and emphasized that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide the question of wakf property has been specifically barred. The court upheld the decision of the Wakf Tribunal, stating that the property in dispute is owned by the respondent-plaintiff and the possession of the petitioner-defendant over the wakf property has been rightly held to be unauthorized.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent-Punjab Wakf Board filed a suit for possession of a property in dispute, claiming ownership and alleging that the petitioner-defendant was in unauthorized possession.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the decision of the Wakf Tribunal, decreeing the suit for possession of the Wakf property in dispute and for recovery of mesne profits for its illegal use and occupation by the petitioner-defendant.
Issues: The issues included the entitlement for possession and mesne profits, time-barred suit, maintainability, valuation for court fees and jurisdiction, and locus standi to file the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the wide connotation of 'any dispute, question or other matters relating to a Wakf or Wakf property' and the jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal in deciding such disputes. It also highlighted the limitations of the supervisory jurisdiction in correcting mere errors of fact or law.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed for being devoid of any merit.
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J. - The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 15.10.2009 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Wakf Tribunal, Amritsar, decreeing suit for possession filed by respondent-Punjab Wakf Board.
2. Facts giving rise to the present revision petition are as under:-
3. Respondent-Punjab Wakf Board filed a suit for possession of property in dispute duly described in the heading of the plaint, as per jamabandi for year 2001-2002 situated at Village Kotla Sultan Singh, Tehsil Amritsar-I, District Amritsar, on the plea that respondent-plaintiff is owner of the same. It is further contended that the said land was leased out to Shri Hari Singh son of Mian Singh upto 1984 and that the said lease period has already expired and the lease was not extended later on. Hari Singh has since expired and after his death petitioner-defendant is in unauthorised possession of the said land and that his possession is only that of trespasser. Official of respondent-plaintiff made several requests to petitioner-defendant to vacate the land in dispute and hand over the possession to respondent-plaintiff but to no effect. Hence, petitioner-defendant was also liable to pay mesne profits for unauthorised use of occupation of the land in dispute @ Rs.1000/-per kanal per year for the period from 1985 onwards till the delivery of possession. Hence, the suit for decree for possession alongwith mesne profits for unauthorised use of occupation of the land in dispute.
4. Petitioner-defendant filed written statement contesting the suit filed by respondent-plaintiff and denied the ownership of respondent-plaintiff. Specific plea has been taken that respondent-plaintiff is not owner of the land in dispute and having no concern with the same and that father of petitioner-defendant was in legal possession of suit land and after death of his father, he has become owner in possession of the same. Hence, it is denied that he is in unauthorised possession or that he is liable to pay mesne profits to respondent-plaintiff.
5. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by learned Tribunal:-
“(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession as prayed for? OPP
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits as prayed for ? OPP
(3) Whether the suit is time barred? OPD
(4) Whether the suit not maintainable? OPD
(5) Whether the suit is not valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD
(6) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD
(7) Relief.”
6. Parties adduced evidence in support of their respective contentions. Learned Tribunal discussed issues no.1 and 2 together and decided the same in favour of respondent-plaintiff by holding that respondent-plaintiff is owner of the property in dispute and that petitioner-defendant is having no right to remain in possession of the same and that his possession is unauthorised and hence, he is liable to pay mesne profit @ Rs.1000/-per kanal per annum.
7. Issue no.3 has been decided partly in favour of petitioner-defendant and partly in favour of respondent-plaintiff.
8. Issues no.4 to 6 have also been decided in favour of respondent-plaintiff.
9. As a consequent to findings on various issues, suit filed by respondent-plaintiff was decreed with cost for possession of the Wakf property in dispute and for recovery of mesne profits for its illegal use and occupation by petitioner-defendant.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned Tribunal.
11. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant that the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned Wakf Tribunal, Amritsar is without jurisdiction as Tribunal is having no jurisdiction to decide the dispute between lessor and lessee. It has been contended that petitioner-defendant is in possession of the lan
