- (1.) The contour of the facts, which needs a necessary mention, for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, is that Gian Khan son of Yusuf Khan and Anwar Khan son of Ballu Khan, petitioner-plaintiffs (for brevity "the plaintiffs") filed the suit (Annexure P1) for a decree of mandatory injunction, directing the Haryana Wakf Board (in short "the Wakf Board"), its Estate Officer and others respondent-defendants (for short "the defendants"), to remove the two shops, foundations and wall shown in the site plan, with a consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining them (defendants) from interfering in their (plaintiffs) use and enjoyment of the property in dispute, inter-alia pleading that the suit property is owned by the Wakf Board under the provisions of The Haryana Wakf Act, 1995 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") and is being used as a Kabristan/grave-yard by the plaintiffs and other Mohammdans of village Bilaspur, since the time immemorial. Some portion of it is also being used as passage by the inhabitants of the village. It was alleged that defendant Nos.1 & 2 have got no right to change its user, but they leased it out to defendant Nos.3 to 7 and the lessees have started constructing two shops and wall over it illegally, in connivance with defendant Nos.1 & 2.
(2.) Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the plaintiffs that the land in dispute is a Kabristan/grave yard and the defendants have got no right to change its use by raising construction over it. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the plaintiffs filed the suit against the defendants for a decree of mandatory/permanent injunction, in the manner indicated hereinbefore. They have also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for ad interim injunction on the same line of pleadings as contained in the plaint.
(3.) The defendants contested the claim of the plaintiffs and filed the reply to the stay application, in which, it was pleaded that the Wakf Board is the owner of the property and it was rightly leased out to different persons since 1986 and now it is on lease with defendant Nos.3 to 5. It was claimed that under the provisions of the Act, when object ceases to operate any part of the property, then, it can be used for any purpose. Since the disputed property has ceased to be used as Kabristan for the last more than 50 years, so, it was rightly leased out by defendant Nos.1 and 2 to defendant Nos.3 to 5. It will not be out of place to mention here that the contesting defendants have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the stay application and prayed for its dismissal.;