Hardayal @ Dayal Singh Vs. Punjab Wakf Board and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1126276
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnFeb-10-2014
AppellantHardayal @ Dayal Singh
RespondentPunjab Wakf Board and Another
Excerpt:
civil revision no.925 of 2012 1 in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh 209 civil revision no.925 of 2012 date of decision: 10.2. 2014 hardayal @ dayal singh ......petitioner versus punjab wakf board and another .......respondents coram: hon'ble mrs.justice sabina present: mr.mujaid khan, advocate for mr.amit kumar jain, advocate, for the petitioner. **** sabina, j. petitioner had filed suit for declaration that he may be declared in possession of the suit property measuring 7 kanals 14 marlas. case of the petitioner, in brief, was that he was in cultivating possession of khasr.no.194 (7-14) since the year 1975. the land was owned by punjab wakf board. in the revenue record, it was incorrectly recorded that hardeep singh son of sampuran singh was in possession of the suit property, whereas, in fact, the petitioner was in possession of the suit property. defendant wakf board in its written statement denied the contentions in the plaint. it was averred that the suit property was being leased out annually in open auction. it was denied that the devi anita 2014.02.13 10:43 i am approving this document chandigarh civil revision no.925 of 2012 2 petitioner was in possession of the suit property since the year 1975. on the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the tribunal:- “1. whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for declaration that he is in possession of the suit land as alleged in the plaint?. opp2 whether the suit is not maintainable ?. opd3 whether the suit is bad for want of notice under section 56 of haryana wakf act ?. opd4 whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit and same is liable to be dismissed with special costs as alleged in the written statement ?. opd5 relief”. vide impugned judgment/ decree dated 25.8.2011, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed as he had failed to produce on record any receipt or lease deed to establish that the land in question had ever been given on lease to the petitioner by the wakf board. further, petitioner had also failed to establish that he was also known as hardeep singh. since, the petitioner had failed to prove his case, the tribunal had rightly dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. in order to establish that the petitioner was in possession of the suit property on lease, he should have proved on record some lease deed executed in his favour or some receipt qua payment of the lease amount by him to the wakf board. in the absence of such devi anita documentary evidence, the suit filed by the plaintiff-petitioner was 2014.02.13 10:43 i am approving this document chandigarh civil revision no.925 of 2012 3 liable to fail. no ground for interference by this court is made out. dismissed. (sabina) judge february 10, 2014 anita devi anita 2014.02.13 10:43 i am approving this document chandigarh
Judgment:

Civil Revision No.925 of 2012 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh 209 Civil Revision No.925 of 2012 Date of decision: 10.2.

2014 Hardayal @ Dayal Singh ......petitioner Versus Punjab Wakf Board and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Mujaid Khan, Advocate for Mr.Amit Kumar Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner.

**** SABINA, J.

Petitioner had filed suit for declaration that he may be declared in possession of the suit property measuring 7 kanals 14 marlas.

Case of the petitioner, in brief, was that he was in cultivating possession of khaSr.No.194 (7-14) since the year 1975.

The land was owned by Punjab Wakf Board.

In the revenue record, it was incorrectly recorded that Hardeep Singh son of Sampuran Singh was in possession of the suit property, whereas, in fact, the petitioner was in possession of the suit property.

Defendant Wakf Board in its written statement denied the contentions in the plaint.

It was averred that the suit property was being leased out annually in open auction.

It was denied that the Devi Anita 2014.02.13 10:43 I am approving this document Chandigarh Civil Revision No.925 of 2012 2 petitioner was in possession of the suit property since the year 1975.

On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the tribunal:- “1.

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for declaration that he is in possession of the suit land as alleged in the plaint?.

OPP2 Whether the suit is not maintainable ?.

OPD3 Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 56 of Haryana Wakf Act ?.

OPD4 Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit and same is liable to be dismissed with special costs as alleged in the written statement ?.

OPD5 Relief”.

Vide impugned judgment/ decree dated 25.8.2011, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed as he had failed to produce on record any receipt or lease deed to establish that the land in question had ever been given on lease to the petitioner by the Wakf Board.

Further, petitioner had also failed to establish that he was also known as Hardeep Singh.

Since, the petitioner had failed to prove his case, the tribunal had rightly dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff.

In order to establish that the petitioner was in possession of the suit property on lease, he should have proved on record some lease deed executed in his favour or some receipt qua payment of the lease amount by him to the Wakf board.

In the absence of such Devi Anita documentary evidence, the suit filed by the plaintiff-petitioner was 2014.02.13 10:43 I am approving this document Chandigarh Civil Revision No.925 of 2012 3 liable to fail.

No ground for interference by this Court is made out.

Dismissed.

(SABINA) JUDGE February 10, 2014 anita Devi Anita 2014.02.13 10:43 I am approving this document Chandigarh