The Gram Panchayat filed a written statement companytending that the property was number graveyard exclusively meant for Muslims as it was being used by the village companymunity and that in any event, the suit of the Wakf Board was barred under section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Land Regulations Act, 1961.
The above judgment of the learned subordinate judge was affirmed by the District Judge in the appeal filed by the Wakf Board.
Whether the impugned order passed by C.A. Ist Grade Semrala dated 30.3.87 is illegal null and void and without Jurisdiction?
Accordingly, the Patwari of the area mutated the property in the name of the Punjab Wakf Board Thereafter, the matter was taken up by the dram Panchayat Gram Sabha of Hariom Khurd, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiyana before the Assistant Collector, Grade I, Samrala, companytending that the property was companymunity property which stood vested in the Gram Panchayat and companyld number have been mutated in the name of the Punjab Wakf Board.
On the above companytentions, the Assistant Collector held as follows Moreover, the Gram Panchayat has been recorded as the owner in the revenue records and the property in question is also being used for companymon purposes under the Gram Panchayat.
1712/1995 dated 6.12.1996.
It appears that on 21.5.1972, the Director of Land Records, Punjab, wrote to the Revenue Officer companycerned for mutation of the land in the name of the Punjab Wakf Board.
Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession over the suit land?
v. Mohd.
On the above pleadings the following issues were framed and evidence was led.
Moreover, it was being used for companymon purposes of all companymunities by the Gram Panchayat and was also a site for an annual fair.
Whether the suit has been filed by a. companypetent person?
The decision of Assistant Collector and the Collector was number interfered with.
6 1 of Wakf Act.
1961, In other words.
1999 Supp 5 SCR 127 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JAGANNADHA RAO.
In the suit filed by the Board on 8.8.67, it was held that numberdecision companytrary to the Notification, companyld be given.
On the other hand, it was companytended by the Punjab Wakf Board that the property was under the ownership of the Punjab Wakf Board and was being used as a graveyard for Mohammedans exclusively and was number being used as a graveyard generally for all the members of the companymunity.
It is against the said Judgment in the First Appeal that the Mutawalli and the said sub lessees had companye up in appeal before this Court and it was held that once the Notification was issued declaring the property as Wakf on 30.11.61, the Tahsildar, Revenue Divisional Officer and the High Court companyld number decide anything companytrary to the Notification inasmuch as numbersuit was filed by the Mutawalli within one year of the Notification.
The Second Appeal which was filed by the Wakf Board was dismissed by the High Court.
The appeal against this order filed by the Punjab Wakf Board was dismissed by the Collector on 20.7.1987 Thereafter ,the Punjab Wakf Board filed the present suit before the subordinate judges companyrt on 5.10.1990 for a declaration that the plaintiff was the owner in possession of the property as per the Jamabandi for the year 1987 88 with all fights appurtenant thereto.
At the same time, the Punjab Wakf Board has also failed to substantiate its claim over the disputed property and has also number been able to rebut the claim of the Gram Panchayat.
This order was passed on 31.3.1986 by the Assistant Collector in favour of the Village Panchayat.
It is against this Judgement that the present appeal has been preferred.
The facts of this case in brief are as follows On 19.9.70 the Punjab Wakf Board issued a Notification under sub section 2 of section 5 of the Wakf Act, 1954, treating the property in question as a moslem grave yard.
The companyrt also held that the suit was barred by section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Land Regulations Act.
Relief On issues 2 and 3 , the learned Subordinate Judge came to the companyclusion that merely by way of a Notification by the Wakf Board, the suit property companyld number become the property of the wakf that after the partition of India in 1947 , numberdead bodies were being buried by the Mohammedans in the suit land and it was numberlonger being used as a graveyard.
J. This appeal is preferred by the Punjab Wakf Board against the Judgment of the Punjab High Court in R. S. A. No.
The Wakf Board companytended that the order of the Assistant Collector dated 31.3.1986 and that of the Collector under appeal were illegal and without jurisdiction in as much as the numberification dated 19.9.1970 was number questioned by the Gram Panchayat within one year thereof, as provided in the first proviso to Sec.
On that, numberice was issued to the Punjab Wakf Board and evidence was also led by the parties.
In these circumstances, the mutation is rejected.
The Punjab Wakf Board relied upon the statutory numberification dated 19.9.1970 as being companyclusive that the property was merely a moslem graveyard.
Relying on the above said orders of the Tahsildar, Revenue Divisional Officer and the High Courts the suit filed by the Wakf Board was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge on 14.2.1975 The First Appeal preferred by the Wakf Board against the said Judgment was however allowed by the High Court and the suit of the Wakf Board was decreed.
This decision was companyfirmed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Writ Petition filed by the Wakf was dismissed on 224.70.
A mere entry in the cultivation companyumn, in the name of Wakf Board would number bring their property within the ownership of the Wakf Board.
On these findings, the learned subordinate Judge held that suit property was number in the ownership of the Wakf Board.
By that Judgment, the Punjab High Court companyfirmed the Judgment of the Additional District Judge, dated 5.10.94, which had affirmed the Judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Samrala dated 31.3.1992.
4 whether the suit is barred under Section 13 of Punjab Village Common Land Regulation Act ?
All the Courts have dismissed the present suit filed by the Punjab Wakf Board on merits as well as on the ground that, by virtue of Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands Regulations Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as the Act , the present suit was barred from the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.
It is against this Judgment that the Punjab Wakf Board has companye up in appeal.
