Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sureshwar Thakur, Kuldeep Tiwari, JJ.
Balwinder Singh - Petitioner - Appellant
Versus
Gram Panchayat, Kotla Masood and others - Respondents - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 2785 of 2009 (O&M)
Decided On : 10-02-2023
The Punjab Wakf Board challenged the orders passed by the statutory authorities and the Civil Court, which were made against it, and also the orders passed by the Civil Court, which were made against the Gram Panchayat. The main issue was to determine whether the panchayats were capacitated to lease the petition lands, in the face of the petition lands being described in the classification column(s) concerned, to be Gair Mumkin Kabaristan. The Court held that the entry in the classification column of the relevant revenue entry, enjoys precedence over the entry in the revenue records describing the petition lands as Shamlat Deh. The further concomitant effect thereof, is that, the notifications issued under Section 5 of the Act of 1954, declaring the petition lands, as Wakf property, were validly made notifications, as the same are in complete tandem therewith.
Fact of the Case:
The Punjab Wakf Board challenged the orders passed by the statutory authorities and the Civil Court, which were made against it, and also the orders passed by the Civil Court, which were made against the Gram Panchayat. The main issue was to determine whether the panchayats were capacitated to lease the petition lands, in the face of the petition lands being described in the classification column(s) concerned, to be Gair Mumkin Kabaristan.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the entry in the classification column of the relevant revenue entry, enjoys precedence over the entry in the revenue records describing the petition lands as Shamlat Deh. The further concomitant effect thereof, is that, the notifications issued under Section 5 of the Act of 1954, declaring the petition lands, as Wakf property, were validly made notifications, as the same are in complete tandem therewith.
Issues: Whether the panchayats were capacitated to lease the petition lands, in the face of the petition lands being described in the classification column(s) concerned, to be Gair Mumkin Kabaristan.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the entry in the classification column of the relevant revenue entry, enjoys precedence over the entry in the revenue records describing the petition lands as Shamlat Deh. The further concomitant effect thereof, is that, the notifications issued under Section 5 of the Act of 1954, declaring the petition lands, as Wakf property, were validly made notifications, as the same are in complete tandem therewith.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the Civil Revision Petitions and CWP filed by the Wakf Board and quashed the impugned orders. The Court dismissed the CWP filed by Balwinder Singh and Darshan Singh and the Civil Revision Petition filed by the Gram Panchayat.
Key Points: - The entry in the classification column of the revenue entry has precedence over Shamlat Deh classifications, affecting Wakf notifications and panchayat leasing powers (!) (!) (!) . - Whether the Wakf Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to decide disputes over petition lands described as Gair Mumkin Kabaristan/Maqbooza Ahle Islam, overriding Punjab Act authorities (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The binding effect and conclusivity of revenue-record classifications (Gair Mumkin Kabaristan/Maqbooza Ahle Islam) and the validity/impact of Section 5 Wakf Act notifications in tandem with Syed Mohd. Salie Labbai and Gram Jamalpur jurisprudence (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The relationship between Shamilat Deh entries vs. Gair Mumkin Kabaristan entries and which controls; whether Punjab Act 1953 prevails over Central Wakf Act in these matters, and the scope of Article 31-A protections (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Consequence of non-notice to Gram Panchayat prior to Wakf notifications and the impact on validity of those notifications (!) (!) . - Effect of 108A Wakf Act and Section 85 on Civil Court judgments and res judicata in Wakf property disputes (!) (!) (!) .
SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.
1. The Punjab Wakf Board concerned, one Balwinder Singh, one Darshan Singh, and, Gram Panchayat alias Gram Sabha, Kotla Masood are respectively aggrieved from the orders made against them, respectively by the statutory authorities concerned, and, by the Civil Court concerned. The above orders were made, upon a motion made by the Gram Panchayats concerned, under Section 11, and, under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). Moreover, in Civil Revision No. 826 of 2014, Civil Revision No. 3639 of 2016, Civil Revision No. 190 of 2018, and, in Civil Revision No. 2267 of 2012, the orders challenged before this Court, are made by the learned Wakf Tribunal concerned, whereas, in Civil Revision No. 2112 of 2016, and, in Civil Revision No. 1912 of 2016, and, in Civil Revision No. 3780 of 2017, the orders challenged before this Court, are made by the learned Civil Court concerned.
2. The Punjab Wakf Board is aggrieved from the above concurrently made orders against it, and, is led to constitute thereagainst Civil Revision No. 3780 of 2017, Civil Revision No. 190 of 2018, Civil Revision No. 1912 of 2016, Civil Revision No. 2112 of 2016, Civil Revision No. 3639 of 2016, Civil Revision No. 826 of 2014, and, Civil Writ Petition No. 16600 of 2015, before this Court. Petitioner Balwinder Singh, and, petitioner Darshan Singh being also aggrieved from the above made order(s), have also respectively instituted Civil Writ Petition No. CWP-2785-2009, and, CWP-13839-2015, before this Court. Gram Panchayat @ Gram Sabha, Kotla Masood being also aggrieved from the above made concurrent order, has also instituted Civil Revision No. 2267 of 2012.
3. Though, the properties encapsulated in the writ petitions (supra), are located in different mohals, but since the revenue entries in relation to all the writ petitions, are almost common. Moreover, when the hereinafter formulated common questions of law, arise for determination in the writ petitions (supra). Therefore, all the writ petitions are capable of being decided through a common verdict.
4. Since the hereinafter formulated questions of law, upon the Civil Writ Petitions (supra), are also common to the Civil Revision Petitions (supra), besides when they relate to almost the same revenue entries, as occurring in the relevant revenue records. Thus, though the petition lands are located in different mohals, yet the Civil Revision Petitions (supra) are also capable of being decided along with the Civil Writ Petitions (supra), rather through a common verdict.
Facts of CWP No. 2785 of 2009
5. Gram Panchayat of village Kotla Masood, instituted a petition under Section 7 of the Act for seeking the ejectment of one Balwinder Singh from the land bearing khasra No. 89/119, khasra No. 11//21/1(5-4) 12//23(7-2), 24(7-2) 25(8-0) 15//3/1(4-17) 4(8-0) 5(8-0) 16//1(7-4) 2(8-0) situated at village Kotla Masood, Tehsil Khamano, District Fatehgarh Sahib. In the revenue records, the petition land is described as Maqbooza Ahle Islam. The said petition was dismissed by the competent authority concerned, vide order dated 27.3.2006. Aggrieved against the order (supra), the Gram Panchayat concerned, preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate Authority concerned. The learned Appellate Authority concerned vide order dated 7.11.2008, allowed the appeal (supra) preferred before it, and, the order passed by the learned Collector concerned, was set aside. Therefore, the instant petition has been preferred, by the petitioner, before this Court seeking quashing of the order dated 7.11.2008, passed by the learned Appellate Authority concerned.
Facts of Civil Revision No. 2267 of 2012
6. Punjab Wakf Board, Ambala Cantt, instituted a suit for declaration to the effect that it was the owner, and, in possession of the land measuring 65K-19M, comprised in khewat No. 72, khatauni No. 110, Rect. No. 12, Killa Nos. 23, 24, 25, Rect. No. 15, Killa Nos. 3/1, 4, 5, Rect. No. 16,
The Wakf Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction over properties classified as Takia, graveyard, and Maszid, which are deemed public graveyards and cannot be divested by non-user.
The jurisdiction for disputes concerning Wakf properties lies exclusively with the Wakf Tribunal, not civil courts, reinforcing the necessity for timely legal action under the WAKF ACT.
(1) Creation of Wakf – Alleged use of suit land as burial ground prior to 1900 or 1867 is not sufficient to establish a Wakf by user in absence of evidence to show that it was so used.(2) Principle o....
The property was determined to be Wakf, with sales executed without the Wakf Board's sanction declared void, affirming the Muthavalli's right to maintain the suit.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
