Satish Kumar Mittal, J. - (1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of R.S.A. Nos. 1989, 1990 of 1990, 1640, 2207 of 1991, 1691 and 2049 of 1994 in which common questions of facts and law are involved. All these appeals have been filed by the Punjab Wakf Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') against the judgments and decree passed by both the Courts below, whereby the suit for possession filed by the Board on the basis of title, has been dismissed. In all these appeals the appellant -Board has filed separate suits against various persons, who are in possession of the land in dispute bearing Khasra No. 1335 situated at Patti, District Amritsar, claiming the same as wakf property. The brief facts of the case are that the Board filed a suit for possession alleging therein that the Board is owner of the land in dispute which is recorded as 'Kabristan' in the revenue record and with regard to that a notification dated 23.4.1983 declaring the same as wakf property was issued under Section 5(2) of the Wakf Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It has been alleged that the defendants are in illegal possession of the suit land and they are liable to be ejected.
(2.) THE defendants contested the suit on various grounds, including jurisdiction. It was alleged that they are tenants under Mandir Balmik Sabha, Patti, who is owner of the property in suit. It was denied that the suit property is a wakf property. It was alleged that the suit property was never dedicated for burial of dead bodies of muslims nor it was used as such. It was not a muslim grave -yard, rather the property in dispute belongs to Chuhra community of Patti, who earlier used to bury their dead bodies in the disputed khasra number. Regarding notification dated 23.4.1983 issued under Section 5(2) of the Act it was alleged that before issuing the said notification neither any notice was given to the defendants/Mandir Balmik Sabha nor they were heard, therefore, the said notification is not binding on them. On the pleadings of the parties various issues, including 'whether the property in dispute is a wakf property and vests in Punjab Wakf Board', were framed. On issue No. 1, it was held that the property in dispute was never used before partition or after partition of the country for the purpose of burial of the dead bodies of Mohammedans. It was further found that the Chuhra community of Patti is in possession of the property in dispute since long as is clear from the revenue record, i.e., 1891 -92 Ex. D -32, 1897 -98 Ex. D -31, 1911 -12 Ex. D -30, 1938 -39 Ex. D -29, 1950 -51 Ex. D -28, and earlier they used to bury the dead bodies in the same. It was further found that the plaintiff did not lead any evidence to show that the property in dispute was ever used as a 'wakf property' and it was dedicated to the Muslims. Rather, P.W. 1 -Amin Hassan, Rent Controller of the Board, has admitted in the cross -examination that in the suit property there is a Mandir of Balmik and a Mandir of Devi Mata. It has also been held that in the year 1954 a Commissioner was appointed to conduct a survey with regard to wakf property in Punjab but no such evidence has been brought on record by the plaintiff to show that the disputed khasra number was found to be a wakf property. It has been found that since long the Chuhra community of Patti is in possession of the disputed property and the same is being let out by Mandir Balmik Sabha to different persons. With regard to notification dated 23.4.1983 issued under Section 5(2) of the Act it was held that no notice was ever served to the defendant to present his case, therefore, the said notification is not conclusive to hold the property as a 'wakf property' and as such the same is not binding oh the defendant. Even the mutation sanctioned on the basis of said notification in favour of the Board is also not binding on the defendant and confer any right or title on the Board. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court while holding that the Board has failed to show its title on the suit property and also failed to prove that the property in dispute was a 'wakf property'. It was further held that the possession of the defendants over the property in dispute is not unlawful.
(3.) THE appeal filed by the plaintiff -Board against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed and the aforesaid finding of fact recorded by the trial Court was affirmed.;