- (1.) Petitioner-Punjab Wakf Board is aggrieved of the order dated 18.1.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge (1)-cum-Wakf Tribunal, Sangrur, whereby the suit claiming possession and permanent injunction, much less recovery against the respondent-defendants, has been dismissed. Mr. S.K. Pipat, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Manoj Kumar Pundir, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner-Wakf Board submits that the property as shown in the amended plaint/head note of the plaint, belonged to Khan Kar Pir Banna Banoi and, thus, being the Wakf Property from time immemorial vested in the Punjab Wakf Board and the said fact was notified as per notification dated 9.11.1970 and was also reflected in the jamabandi for the year 1992-2000 and the defendants are in unauthorised possession of the same for many years and their status, as recorded in the revenue record, is of lessee and the entries allegedly shown are wrong as no lease deed was ever executed between the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and in case the defendants are able to set up a lease deed, the same is illegal and void, which would not effect the rights of the plaintiff.
(2.) He further submits that on previous occasion also, the plaintiff had filed a suit against the State of Punjab and others, including Rajinder Modi Mills through D.D. Modi, father of defendant No. 2, which was withdrawn with permission to file the suit on the same subject matter as was allowed by the Court vide order dated 24.1.1972. Umpteen number of documents, i.e., Ex. P11 to Ex. P73, details of which have been given in the judgment and decree and proved though the testimony of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2, ex-facie, show the status of the plaintiff to be the owner, but, however the Wakf Tribunal misread and misinterpreted the documents and dismissed the suit. He further submits that the Wakf Tribunal has not given any proper weightage to the notification, which clearly shows that Khankah pir Burma Benoi situated in the area of Sunam is Wakf property and the said notification has attained finality in the absence of challenge to the same.
(3.) He further submits that as per the judgments already rendered by the various Courts, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it has been held that Wakf property cannot be changed by its non-users and the Wakf Tribunal has misconstrued and misapplied the provisions of the Wakf Act and, thus, mere is illegality and perversity in the impugned judgment and decree and the same are liable to be set-aside.;