DARSHAN SINGH, J.

The present revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 16.11.2015, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Palwal (exercising the powers of the Tribunal under Section 83 of Wakf Act, 1995).

2. The petitioner-plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration that the suit property is not the wakf property. In the consequential relief, he sought a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land measuring 1 Kanal 4 Marla detailed and described in para No.1 of the plaint within the revenue estate of Palwal, illegally and from raising any unauthorized construction on any part thereon and from alienating the same in any manner. In the alternative relief, the petitioner-plaintiff has sought the decree for possession with mandatory injunction in case the defendants are found to be in possession of the suit property.

3. As per the case of the petitioner-plaintiff Shamlat Patti Khel was owner in possession of the land measuring 1 Kanal 4 Marla detailed and described in para No.1 of the plaint situated within the revenue estate of Palwal. Before consolidation an area measuring 0-5 Biswa was shown as Banjar Kadeem and remaining 0-5 Biswa was shown as Kabristan (graveyard) in old Khasra No.4952, which has now been converted to Khasra No.400/1 (1 Kanal 4 Marla). The land measuring 5 Biswa was in possession of Mangal Sain, the father of the plaintiff, bawaja panditai. It was donated to him by way of oral gift by the proprietors of Shamlat Patti Khel and as such the name of his father was entered in the revenue record. It was agreed that proprietors of the Shamlat Patti Khel will not take back the said land from Mangal Sain, the father of the plaintiff and he will remain in possession of the land for ever being Pandit. Mangal Sain has died. After his death the plaintiff, his son, is owner in possession of the land in dispute and defendants have got no right, title or interest therein. There is other Kabristan in the area of Palwal city and is being used by the Muslims for burial purpose. The plaintiff is in possession of approximately 200 square yards area. Defendant No.1 claims the suit property to be as Kabristan, whereas defendants No.2 to 6 are claiming that the same is owned by them by virtue of oral or written purchase from the unauthorized persons. The notification declaring the suit property as wakf property is null and void. The suit property is not wakf property and it does not vest in the Wakf Board. The proprietor of Shamlat Patti Khel had never withdrawn the property from Mangal Sain nor they have transferred the land in dispute in any manner. Defendant No.1 has got recorded the entries in his name in the Jamabandies and Khasra Girdawaries illegally and in collusion with the revenue authorities. The said change in the revenue record is illegal and does not affect the rights of the plaintiff. He is still owner in possession of the suit land. Hence the suit.

4. Defendant No.1 contested the suit on the grounds inter alia that the suit property is a wakf property. It has vested in the Wakf Board vide notification dated 11.04.1987. Before leasing out the said property to defendants No.2 to 6, the same was used as Kabristan by the Muslim community. In future also the suit property will be used as Kabristan. The other averments in the plaint regarding oral gift by the proprietors of Shamlat Patti Khel to Mangal Sain, the father of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff being in possession of the land in dispute, have been controverted.

5. Defendants No.2 to 6 are claiming themselves to be the tenant in possession over the suit property under respondent No.1 Wakf Board on the basis of allotment/lease.

6. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues are framed:-

1. Whether the property in dispute is not wakf property? OPD

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP

3. Whether th