The court clarified that no limitation is prescribed for making an entry in the register of mutation and rejected the argument based on the Punjab Land Record Manual. The petitioner could not claim occupancy tenant status by operation of law.

SUDHIR MITTAL, J.

1. The land in dispute measures 69 bighas 18 biswas and the petitioner alleges himself to be the Mutwalli of Khanqah being Chela of Amanat Ali Shah, the previous Mutwalli. Jamabandi for the year 1981-82 of village Sherwani Kot Tehsil Malerkotla District Sangrur records the name of the owner as “Khanqah biyatmam Amanat Ali Shah Chela Nathu Shah Faqir (Muafidar)” and the column of cultivation records 'self cultivation' Jamabandi for the year 2016-17 also records similar entries. A notification dated 01.05.1971/09.11.1970 (date is not clear from the impugned orders) was issued by the Punjab Wakf Board whereupon the Patwari Halqa entered a mutation in its favour. The petitioner preferred objections before the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade who declared the mutation to be a disputed one and referred the matter to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade Malerkotla. Vide order dated 04.01.2021, the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Malerkotla sanctioned mutation in favour of the Punjab Wakf Board – respondent No. 5. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Collector vide order dated 27.01.2021 and revision petition filed before the Financial Commissioner was dismissed vide order dated 06.01.2022. These orders are under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. During the pendency of the revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, lease deed dated 20.04.2021 was executed by respondent No. 5 in favour of the Department of Medical Education and Research, Punjab and the same includes the land in dispute.

3. It may also be noted that according to the contents of the petition, mutation No. 995 entered in favour of respondent No. 5 on the basis of the very same notification as aforementioned was rejected by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade vide order dated 13.10.1994 and the same was not challenged by way of appeal or revision. Vide notice dated 17.10.2012 issued under Section 54(1) of the Wakf Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') respondent No. 5 directed the petitioner to remove his possession as the same was illegal and unauthorized. Reply dated 03.11.2012 was filed on behalf of the petitioner wherein it was stated that before the year 1900 one Mohd. Ali Khan Sahib Jagirdar was the owner of the property and that the petitioner was in possession as Mutwalli Khanqah. The land was Muafi and possession was as Muafidar. Possession has been open and peaceful as gair marusi since a long period of time and, thus, the notice was liable to be withdrawn. The petitioner allegedly continued in possession and false FIR No. 45 dated 20.04.2021 was registered at P.S. Sandaur Sangrur under Sections 447, 511 IPC on the allegation that some known persons (named in the FIR) and some unknown persons had tried to take illegal possession over the land of the Punjab Wakf Board. This led to the filing of a petition before the Wakf Tribunal, Patiala titled Mohd. Younus vs. The Chief Executive Officer, Punjab Wakf Board etc. for a declaration of title and for permanent injunction restraining the respondents therein from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff. Declaration was also sought that notification dated 01.05.1971 was illegal as was mutation No. 2451 sanctioned on 04.01.2021. Consequently, lease agreement dated 20.04.2021 was also illegal. A perusal of this petition shows that Khanqah Balianwali is stated to be the owner in possession. Muafi was granted in the year 1912. The earliest Mutwalli was Peershah who was in control and management of the property followed by his successors.

4. The word 'Khanqah' means a Monastery or Society where people dedicated to religion reside. In Hindi it can be referred to as 'Dargah'.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that sanctioning of mutation in favour of respondent No. 5 only on the basis of a notification was illegal especially when earlier mutation No. 995 entered on the basis of the same notification had been rejected and the order of rejection was not challenged. Fur