High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
PUNJAB WAKF BOARD. v. SMT.SUSHILA RANI & Ors. - RSA-340-2000  RD-P&H 16 (4 January 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
R.S.A. No.340 of 2000
DATE OF DECISION:19-1-2006
PUNJAB WAKF BOARD.
SMT.SUSHILA RANI & ORS.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR,
Present:- G.S. Bhatia,Advocate
for the appellant.
This is defendant's appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(for brevity 'the Code'), challenging concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below holding that the defendant-appellant- Punjab Wakf Board (hereinafter referred to as "Board) is not the owner or in possession of the suit land. It is appropriate to mention that the instant appeal has been filed by Board and it has been claimed that it has leased out the land to the plaintiff-respondent Smt.Sushila Rani. However, both the Courts have found as a fact that before the land could vest in the Board it stood acquired in R.S.A. No.340 of 2000 2
accordance with the process provided for acquisition of land by the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The claim of the Board that a notification dated 21-11-1970 (Ex.P2) by Government of India, under Section5(2) of Wakf Act, 1954 declaring the land as Wakf property having been issued by the Government of India and the land had vested in it, has been rejected on the ground that the State of Haryana had already acquired the land on 20-1-1968.
The award had been announced and the awarded amount was disbursed amongst the proprietors of the village. Issuance of notification (Ex.P2) on 22-11-1970, therefore, has been held to be meaningless. The aforementioned findings became necessary in the civil suit filed by plaintiff-respondent Smt.Sushila Rani, who had sought permanent injunction in respect of the suit property and a consequential relief of mandatory injunction. It is appropriate to mention that when the Board had taken up the stand that it was owner of the suit land then naturally the findings on the aforementioned question were invited from the Court.
Mr.G.S. Bhatia, learned counsel for the Board has argued that both the courts below have erred in law by recording a finding on the question relating to title of the suit property whereas the plaintiff- respondent had merely filed a suit for permanent injunction with consequential relief of mandatory injunction and, therefore, no finding with regard to title could have been recorded by the Courts below.
Having heard the learned counsel I am of the considered R.S.A. No.340 of 2000 3
view that no interference of this Court in the concurrent findings of fact is necessary because no question of law much less a substantive question of law has been raised warranting admission of the appeal. It is well settled that when a party in reply set up a claim and the evidence on that basis is adduced then the Courts are not debarred from recording findings on such an issue. It is undisputed that the Board has further set up the claim to be the owner of the suit property in his written statement and had invited the Court to record findings on the aforementioned issues.
The aforementioned position emerges from a perusal of para 13 of the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court. Therefore, there is no question of law raised in this appeal which may warrant its admission in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code. The appeal is wholly without merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.
January 19 ,2006 (M.M. KUMAR)
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.