PARAMJEET SINGH, J. - (1.) THE instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of judgment and decree dated 01.03.2006 (Annexure P/3) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, exercising the powers of Tribunal under Wakf Act, 1995 and for dismissal of the suit (Annexure P/1) and quashing of notification dated 12.11.1970 (Annexure P/5).
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that Punjab Wakf Board filed a suit for joint possession of land measuring 43 kanals 2 marlas out of land measuring 56 kanals 2 marlas situated in village Bajwara, as described in the jamabandi for the year 1995 -96. The said suit was contested by the petitioner by filing a written statement in which it was specifically mentioned that suit is not maintainable. Notification dated 12.11.1970 is illegal and does not affect the rights of the petitioner - defendant. It was further pleaded that the property in question is not a wakf property. The possession of the petitioner - defendant is legal and valid and is continuous for more than 30 years from the time of their predecessor - in -interest. The authorities were not competent to issue notification. It is also averred in the written statement that the petitioner is the chela of Sain Faqir Shah and is in possession of the same and was appointed as gaddi nasheen by the bekh and worshippers. It is also averred in the written statement that earlier civil suit was filed whereby Faqir Shah was held to be mutawalli. An appeal of the Wakf Board was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 18.02.1972 (Annexure P/4). It is also submitted that the petitioner had earlier filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the Wakf Board. The said suit was also decreed vide judgment and decree dated 25.07.2002. Thereafter, Wakf Board had filed civil suit in which the judgment and decree dated 01.03.2006 (Annexure P/3) have been passed by the Wakf Tribunal under the provisions of the Wakf Act, 1995. On notice, respondent Nos.1, 4 to 7, 9 and 10 have filed their separate written statements and denied the averments made in the writ petition.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.;