The Waqf Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether a property is waqf or not, and the findings of the revenue courts in summary proceedings do not operate as res judicata in a civil suit.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. By this judgment, a bunch of fourteen civil revision bearing Civil Revision Nos. 2104, 2133, 4557, 4670 to 4674, 4680, 4718, 4719, 5013, 5023 and 5024 of 2016 shall stand disposed of with the consent of learned counsel for the parties as the issues which need consideration are common.

2. Petitioners-defendants have filed this revision petition against the judgment dated 28.10.2015 passed by the Waqf Tribunal, constituted under the Waqf Act, 1995. Haryana Waqf Board filed a suit for possession and mesne profits with consequential relief of permanent injunction claiming to be owner of the property and the defendants who in all the cases to be in unauthorized possession. It was further pleaded that the defendants have denied the title of the plaintiff and claiming themselves to be the owner in possession.

3. The defendants appeared and pleaded that the Haryana Waqf Board-plaintiff is not the owner of the property. It was further claimed that the suit in question is barred under the principles of resjudicata. It was next averred that the plaintiff earlier filed an application under Section 14-A (ii) of The Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (`the 1953 Act' for short), seeking ejectment of the predecessors of the defendants, which was dismissed by the revenue courts set up under the 1953 Act. It was further pleaded that the Haryana Waqf Board has never remained in possession of the property in dispute and the defendants and their predecessors-in-interest are in possession of the property for the last more than 100 years and entry in the revenue records, Dargah Khawaja Shamshudin Tarak Panipat to the owner.

4. Replication was filed by the Board. The Waqf Tribunal framed the issues and allowed the parties to lead the evidence.

5. The Waqf Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence available on the file, has recorded a finding that the property in dispute vests with the waqf Board as per notification dated 27.10.1970 Ex.PW1/D issued by the competent authority. The Tribunal has also recorded a finding that even the revenue record has been corrected and the property is recorded in the revenue record as owned by the Waqf Board. With these findings, the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent was decreed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the finding of the revenue authorities, while deciding the application under Section 14-A (ii) of the 1953 Act, is final and binding, and, therefore, the Haryana Waqf Board has no right to file the suit. He has produced on file the final order passed by the revenue court as Annexure P-2, which is passed by the Commissioner Ambala Division, Ambala dated 30.10.1980.

7. A careful reading of the aforesaid order shows that the revenue courts refused to order the ejectment on the ground that entry in the revenue record does not show that the Waqf Board is owner of the property. The Commissioner, while deciding revision petition clearly recorded that till the entries in the revenue record are corrected, the Waqf Board cannot be stated to be the owner. The relevant extract of the finding of the Commissioner is as under:-

“Till the entry in the revenue record with regard to the ownership is made in favour of the petitioner, the revenue officers cannot treat the petitioner to be the owner because they are to give preference to the revenue record.”

8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds that the findings arrived at by the revenue courts would not operate as resjudicata. Further, the revenue courts were deciding the ejectment petitions under Section 14 of the 1953 Act, which is a summary proceeding. The ejectment petition is not tried as a regular suit. Such finding of the revenue courts cannot be binding on the civil suit.

9. Further, learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out as to whether the revenue courts ever framed the issue questioning the title of the Waqf Board and called upon the Waqf Board to lead evidence.

10. Learned coun