Jagdish Lal vs Punjab Wakf Board on 11 July, 2011

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                      CHANDIGARH




                                        Civil Revision No. 345 of 2009(O&M)
                                               Date of Decision: July 11, 2011.


Jagdish Lal.
                                                     ...... PETITIONER(s)

                                      Versus

Punjab Wakf Board, Chandigarh and another.
                                                     ...... RESPONDENT (s)


CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA


Present:       Mr. K.S.Rekhi,
               Advocate for the petitioner.

               Mr. Vaneesh Singla,
               Advocate for respondent No.1.

                           *****

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)

The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of

the Constitution of India read with Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act, 1995

(hereinafter called as the ‘Act’) for setting aside impugned judgment and

decree dated 28.11.2008 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Wakf Tribunal,

Amritsar (hereinafter called as the ‘Tribunal’) vide which petitioner has been

ordered to be ejected from the premises in dispute.
CR No.345 of 2009 2

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone

through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned

Tribunal.

The only point argued by learned counsel for the petitioner is

that admittedly the present dispute is between lessor and lessee and that

petitioner has been continuing in possession as tenant over the suit property

under respondent -Punjab Wakf Board. Petition for ejectment was filed by

the respondent before learned Tribunal for ejectment of the petitioner-

defendant in which impugned order was passed for ejectment of the

petitioner-defendant. However, it is contended that this fact cannot be gone

into by the Tribunal constituted under the Act and hence, it is contended that

the impugned judgment which has been passed by learned Tribunal is

without jurisdiction and hence, liable to be set aside. He has also placed

reliance upon the judgments rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Board of

Wakf, West Bengal v. Anis Fatma Begum and another, 2011(1) RCR(Civil)

303 and Ramesh Gobindram v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf, AIR 2010

Supreme Court 2897.

There is force in the argument of learned counsel for the

petitioner. The present case is fully covered by aforesaid judgments passed

by Hon’ble Apex Court. It has been specifically held by Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Ramesh Gobindram’s case that eviction suit against tenant of Wakf

property is not maintainable before the Tribunal and that the Wakf Board

ought to have filed suit before civil court. The same view has been

retieterated in Anis Fatima Begum’s case wherein it was observed that
CR No.345 of 2009 3

eviction proceedings regarding Wakf property can only be decided by civil

Court and not by the Tribunal.

Hence, in view of aforementioned facts, the present revision

petition is accepted. The impugned judgment and decree passed by learned

Wakf Tribunal, Amritsar is set aside.

However, it is made clear that this order shall not prevent the

Wakf Board from instituting, if so advised, appropriate proceedings before

the competent Civil Court for redress of its grievance in accordance with law.

( RAM CHAND GUPTA )
July 11, 2011. JUDGE
‘om’