K. Kannan, J. - (1.) THE application for review of the order which was passed on 10.09.2009 is at the instance of the applicant, who says that the order had been passed without notice to him. Since the order had been passed on merits, I had urged the counsel to show that the case would call for an intervention within the parameters of Order 47 CPC.
(2.) THE counsel says that apart from the stray entry in the year 1946 and notification which was issued in the year 1978 under the Wakf Act, the rest of the entries in the jamabandi would show that the property had been left in the hands of Hindus and it was shown as shamilat deh. I have dealt with the effect of a publication issued in the Wakf Act after a survey and made reference to Section 6(4) of the Wakf Act that makes a notification conclusive unless it was modified in pursuance of a decision of a Tribunal. Admittedly, there has been no such modification of the notification. If the applicant is aggrieved against the decision, his remedy will be to challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, if he is so advised, and it shall be impermissible to detain the case for a fresh consideration which has taken a definite view on the legal provisions relating to the finality of notification under the Wakf Act. The counsel also states that a person in possession shall be required to be maintained in such possession unless better title is shown. The Learned Counsel would refer to Section 110 of the Evidence Act as the basis for the applicants to retain their possession. The action for ejectment has been allowed on a finding that the Wakf Board has a better title to obtain ejectment.
(3.) THE application to review is, consequently, dismissed.;