S.S. Sandhawalia, J. - (1.) DO the provisions of Section 15 of the Wakf Act 1954 impliedly repeal or completely override those of Section 11 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act is the core question which has necessitated this reference to the Full Bench. Equally at issue is the correctness of the earlier judgment in Prithipal Singh v. Punjab Waqf Board,, 1977 P.L.J. 271. and Khushi Ram and Anr. v. Punjab Waqf Board,, 1981 P.L.J. 572. holding categorically to the contrary.
(2.) THE Punjab Waqf Board had instituted the suit against the Defendant -Appellant for possession of the agricultural land measuring 9 Kanals 13 Marlas situated in village Bassi Babu Khan, tehsil and district Hoshiarpur. It was alleged that the property in dispute was Waqf Property in terms of Section 66 -C of the Waqf Act and was vested in the Custodian in trust for public purposes of religious and charitable nature. It was the stand that the Waqf Act 1954 (hereinafter called the Act) was applied and enforced in Punjab with effect from the 10th of October, 1959 and this property was transferred by the Custodian to the Plaintiff -Waqf Board registered under Section 25 of the Waqf Act, 1954. It was alleged that the Defendant -Appellant was in forcible possession of the property in dispute since 1970 and was holding it on behalf of the Custodian and consequently his possession was of a permissible nature and in essence of a licencee. The Defendant -Appellant controverted the averments made on behalf of the Plaintiff and claimed himself to be a tenant -at -will under the Plaintiff Board at the rate of Rs. 15 per Kanal as its rent. Particularly the Defendant -Appellant challenged the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to, try the suit.
(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties six issues were framed and the material one being No. 6 is in the terms following: 6. If issue No. 4 is proved, whether the civil court has jurisdiction to try this suit? The trial Court came to the finding that the Defendant -Appellant was a tenant and consequently held that he could be only ejected under the tenancy laws for which the jurisdiction lay, with the revenue Courts. The suit of the Plaintiff -Respondent was consequently dismissed. However, on appeal the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, held that the Defendant -Appellant was not proved to be tenant and allowing the appeal decreed the suit of the Plaintiff -Respondent.;