RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,J. - (1.) This petition is directed against the order of the Wakf Tribunal dated 10.04.2014 dismissing the suit of the petitioner for declaration that it is the owner of the property in dispute and the sale deed executed by defendants No.1 & 2 in favour of defendant No.3 on 01.09.1999 in respect of portion shown as 'MNGH' in green line in the site plan, is illegal, null and void; the sale deed dated 06.10.2000 executed by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.4 is also illegal; and also claimed decree for possession of the property of mosque bearing No.EP-No.S-2269-2270 and MC No.2023/1; sought permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from raising any type of construction in the property in dispute for changing its nature in any manner whatsoever; and also from restraining the defendants to alienate any part or parcel of the suit property by way of sale, transfer, gift, exchange, mortgage or by any other mode or creating any other charge in the said property.
(2.) In brief, the petitioner has alleged ownership over the property in dispute on the basis of a notification but its ownership is denied by the defendants. On the pleadings of the parties, as many as 8 issues were framed besides the additional issue No.8A, which was framed on 10.10.2006. The learned Tribunal, while dismissing the suit of the petitioner, made the following observations:- "Learned counsels for defendants No.3 and 4 have argued that there is no evidence to prove that the property in question is the wakf property. Mere issuance of notification by the Central Government is not the conclusive evidence of the ownership of the wakf board. In this regard they have relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Dev Raj v. Teja Singh, 2004(2) The Punjab Law Reporter 709, Punjab Wakf Board v. Kashmir Singh 2012 (4) Law Herald 3312, Lal Chand v. Balkar Singh 2007(3) Law Herald 2634, Punjab Wakf Board v. Murti Hanuman Jai 2008(1) Local Acts Reporter 270. They prayed for dismissal of the suit. After giving anxious thoughts to the rival contentions and going through the record of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the plaintiff board has not been able to establish its title over the property in question. The Wakf Board has mainly relied upon the notification Ex.P3 wherein the suit property has allegedly been notified to be the Wakf property. There is no other evidence to prove that the property in question was ever used for religious purpose or that the same had been dedicated to the Wakf by any one. Even in the notification Ram Rakhi, Mulakh Raj and Manohar Lal have been shown to be in possession of the property in question. There is nothing to show that they were afforded an opportunity of hearing before the issuance of the notification and in these circumstances the said notification is not binding on the persons who were in possession of the property in question or who have derived title over them. In this view this Court finds support from the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kashmir Singh's case (Supra), wherein it has been held as under: - "10. In addition to the aforesaid, defendant No.1 Wakf Board is also not proved to be owner of the suit land. Merely on the basis of notification Ex.D1 issued under the 1954 Act, it cannot be said that defendant No.1 has become owner of the suit land. There is practically no other evidence to depict Wakf nature of the suit land. The aforesaid notification is not conclusive to prove that the suit land is Wakf property. On the contrary it is proved that the suit land is not wakf property. Admittedly, the suit land is being cultivated and is being used for agricultural purposes. Consequently it cannot be said that the suit land is graveyard or Wakf property as mentioned in the aforesaid notification. It is also the case of defendants themselves that they had leased out the suit land to one Sewa Singh for agricultural purposes, although Wakf Board has failed to prove the same. However, the fact remains that even according to the defendants pleadings, the suit land is being used for agricultural purposes. Consequently it is not Wakf property." To the same effect are the other judgments referred above. So far as the oral evidence of the plaintiff is concerned, PW1 Mohd. Inderish has stated that he has got posted at Patiala only in the year 2007 and inspected the suit property only ? prior to making of the statement by him i.e. in Aug. 2007. He was not having any personal knowledge regarding the nature of the property. Similarly, PW2 Mohd. Ismail simply identified his signatures on the plaint and deposed regarding getting the site plan prepared by him. During his cross examination he has admitted that he saw the property in question first time in the year 2004-2005 and at that time two shops were there over the property in question. Therefore, the Wakf board could not produce any evidence to the effect that property in question has ever been used for religious purpose. The wakf board could not substantiate the allegations that the possession of the property in question was delivered to Mulakh Raj etc. by the wakf board. The pleadings of the plaintiff in this regard are self contradictory. The plaintiff has pleaded that the defendants have forcibly and illegally occupied the property in question and simultaneously it has been pleaded that the possession of Mulakh Raj predecessor of defendants No.1 and 2 was as licensee. These two stands cannot coexist together. Therefore, there is nothing to show that the possession of the property in question was ever given by the wakf board to the predecessors of defendants No.1 and 2. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff has not been able to prove its title over the property in question. There are two shops over a part of the property in question and there is a house of defendant Raj Rani on back side thereof as admitted by the witnesses of the plaintiff. Since, the plaintiff has not been able to prove its title over the suit property, the plaintiff cannot get the possession thereof from the defendants. The plaintiff is also not entitled to declaration and injunction as prayed for. Consequently, all these issues are decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants."
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that once the notification has been issued, the petitioner has become the owner of the property in dispute, which could not have been possessed and sold by the defendants, who have no right, title or interest in the same.;