20.08.2025 Pronounced on The Punjab Wakf Board Ambala Cantt. The Punjab Wakf v. Hamid
Case Details
1990 (O&M) RSA-1334-1990 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH RSA-1334-1990 (O&M) RSA Reserved on: 1 Reserved on: 18.08.2025 Pronounced on:20.08.2025 Pronounced on The Punjab Wakf Board Ambala Cantt. The Punjab Wakf .....Appellant VERSUS Hamid (deceased) through LRs & Others Hamid (deceased) through LRs .....Respondents HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Bawa, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Bawa, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Bawa, Advocate for respondent No.1. Service of respondent No.2 dispensed with Service of respondent No.2 dispensed with Service of respondent No.2 dispensed with Vide order dated 07.09.1995 Vide order dated 07.09.1995 Mr. B.R.Rana, Advocate for respondent No.3. Mr. B.R.Rana, Advocate for respondent No.3. Mr. B.R.Rana, Advocate for respondent No.3. MANDEEP PANNU, J MANDEEP PANNU, J 1. the Punjab The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the Punjab The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by Wakf Board
Legal Reasoning
) (appellant/defendant No.1) against Hamid against and and others others ), challenging the /plaintiff and defendants No.2 and 3. herein), challenging the /plaintiff and defendants No.2 and 3. (respondents/plaintiff and defendants No.2 and 3. concurrent findings of the courts below recorded in judgments and decrees dated concurrent findings of the courts below recorded in judgments and decrees dated concurrent findings of the courts below recorded in judgments and decrees dated concurrent findings of the courts below recorded in judgments and decrees dated 21.02.1989 and 08.03.1990. 21.02.1989 and 08.03.1990 2. d permanent The plaintiff, Hamid, filed a suit for declaration and permanent The plaintiff, Hamid, filed a suit for declaration an The plaintiff, Hamid, filed a suit for declaration an injunction claiming ownership and possession of the suit land on the ground that injunction claiming ownership and possession of the suit land on the ground that injunction claiming ownership and possession of the suit land on the ground that injunction claiming ownership and possession of the suit land on the ground that his family had been in continuous possession for more than one hundred years, his family had been in continuous possession for more than one hundred years, his family had been in continuous possession for more than one hundred years, his family had been in continuous possession for more than one hundred years, starting from the time of his forefathers. He pleaded that the possession of his starting from the time of his forefathers. He pleaded that the possession of his starting from the time of his forefathers. He pleaded that the possession of his starting from the time of his forefathers. He pleaded that the possession of his TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.25 09:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1990 (O&M) RSA-1334-1990 (O&M) -2- father, Jumna, and thereafter his own possession was adverse to the true owners er, Jumna, and thereafter his own possession was adverse to the true owners er, Jumna, and thereafter his own possession was adverse to the true owners er, Jumna, and thereafter his own possession was adverse to the true owners and that by virtue of uninterrupted, open and hostile possession, their rights had and that by virtue of uninterrupted, open and hostile possession, their rights had and that by virtue of uninterrupted, open and hostile possession, their rights had and that by virtue of uninterrupted, open and hostile possession, their rights had ripened into ownership. According to him, the land had been wrongly transferred ripened into ownership. According to him, the land had been wrongly transferred ripened into ownership. According to him, the land had been wrongly transferred ripened into ownership. According to him, the land had been wrongly transferred e Punjab Wakf Board without any notice to him, and such transfer in the name of the Punjab Wakf Board without any notice to him, and such transfer e Punjab Wakf Board without any notice to him, and such transfer in the name of th behind his back was in violation of principles of natural justice. He denied that the behind his back was in violation of principles of natural justice. He denied that the behind his back was in violation of principles of natural justice. He denied that the behind his back was in violation of principles of natural justice. He denied that the land was ever a graveyard or wakf property, asserting instead that it was used as a land was ever a graveyard or wakf property, asserting instead that it was used as a land was ever a graveyard or wakf property, asserting instead that it was used as a land was ever a graveyard or wakf property, asserting instead that it was used as a se), and pointed out that in earlier surveys, the land had not kabaila (slaughterhouse), and pointed out that in earlier surveys, the land had not se), and pointed out that in earlier surveys, the land had not kabaila (slaughterhou been treated as wakf property. The subsequent survey treating it as wakf property been treated as wakf property. The subsequent survey treating it as wakf property been treated as wakf property. The subsequent survey treating it as wakf property been treated as wakf property. The subsequent survey treating it as wakf property was alleged to be illegal and ineffective against him. was alleged to be illegal and ineffective against him. was alleged to be illegal and ineffective against him. 3. e suit by The Punjab Wakf Board, defendant No. 1, contested the suit by The Punjab Wakf Board, defendant No. 1, contested th The Punjab Wakf Board, defendant No. 1, contested th denying that the plaintiff was either in possession or had matured title by adverse denying that the plaintiff was either in possession or had matured title by adverse denying that the plaintiff was either in possession or had matured title by adverse denying that the plaintiff was either in possession or had matured title by adverse possession. It was specifically pleaded that the suit land was duly vested in the possession. It was specifically pleaded that the suit land was duly vested in the possession. It was specifically pleaded that the suit land was duly vested in the possession. It was specifically pleaded that the suit land was duly vested in the Wakf Board and had been so notified. The objection of want of notice under Wakf Board and had been so notified. The objection of want of notice under Wakf Board and had been so notified. The objection of want of notice under Wakf Board and had been so notified. The objection of want of notice under on 56 of the Wakf Act was also taken. Defendants No. 2 and 3 did not contest Section 56 of the Wakf Act was also taken. Defendants No. 2 and 3 did not contest on 56 of the Wakf Act was also taken. Defendants No. 2 and 3 did not contest on 56 of the Wakf Act was also taken. Defendants No. 2 and 3 did not contest and were proceeded ex parte. and were proceeded ex parte. 4. The trial Court framed following issues The trial C issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land as owner? Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land as owner? Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land as owner? OPP OPP 2. Whether the suit land has le gally vested in defendant No.1? Whether the suit land has legally vested in defendant No.1? OPD OPD 3. Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 56 of Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 56 of Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 56 of the Wakf Act? OPD the Wakf Act? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff is stopped from filing the present suit? Whether the plaintiff is stopped from filing the present suit? Whether the plaintiff is stopped from filing the present suit? OPD OPD 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.25 09:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1990 (O&M) RSA-1334-1990 (O&M) -3- 6. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 7. Relief. 5. appreciating The evidence was led by both the parties and after appreciating The evidence was led by both the parties The evidence was led by both the parties evidence the learned trial Court held that the plaintiff was in possession of the land the learned trial Court held that the plaintiff was in possession of the land held that the plaintiff was in possession of the land but not its owner, and further that the land vested in the Wakf Board by virtue of but not its owner, and further that the land vested in the Wakf Board by virtue of but not its owner, and further that the land vested in the Wakf Board by virtue of but not its owner, and further that the land vested in the Wakf Board by virtue of the notification. The plea of want of notice was decided against the defendants, and the notification. The plea of want of notice was decided against the defendants, and the notification. The plea of want of notice was decided against the defendants, and the notification. The plea of want of notice was decided against the defendants, and onsequently, the suit was decreed for permanent the suit was held maintainable. Consequently, the suit was decreed for permanent onsequently, the suit was decreed for permanent the suit was held maintainable. C injunction, restraining the Wakf Board from dispossessing the plaintiff otherwise injunction, restraining the Wakf Board from dispossessing the plaintiff otherwise injunction, restraining the Wakf Board from dispossessing the plaintiff otherwise injunction, restraining the Wakf Board from dispossessing the plaintiff otherwise than in due course of law, but the declaration of ownership was refused. than in due course of law, but the declaration of ownership was refused. than in due course of law, but the declaration of ownership was refused. 6. findings on In appeal, the lower appellate court reversed the findings on In appeal, the lower appellate court reversed the In appeal, the lower appellate court reversed the ownership. The appellate court, after examining the revenue records and oral ownership. The appellate court, after examining the revenue records and oral ownership. The appellate court, after examining the revenue records and oral ownership. The appellate court, after examining the revenue records and oral testimony, held that the plaintiff and his father before him had been in continuous testimony, held that the plaintiff and his father before him had been in continuous testimony, held that the plaintiff and his father before him had been in continuous testimony, held that the plaintiff and his father before him had been in continuous possession for several decades, that such possession was open and hostile, and that possession for several decades, that such possession was open and hostile, and tha possession for several decades, that such possession was open and hostile, and tha possession for several decades, that such possession was open and hostile, and tha by efflux of time, ownership had ripened in their favour by adverse possession. by efflux of time, ownership had ripened in their favour by adverse possession. by efflux of time, ownership had ripened in their favour by adverse possession. by efflux of time, ownership had ripened in their favour by adverse possession. The court also noticed that the initial notification did not include the suit property, The court also noticed that the initial notification did not include the suit property, The court also noticed that the initial notification did not include the suit property, The court also noticed that the initial notification did not include the suit property, and its subsequent inclusion was behind the back of the plaintiff and therefore not and its subsequent inclusion was behind the back of the plaintiff and therefore not and its subsequent inclusion was behind the back of the plaintiff and therefore not and its subsequent inclusion was behind the back of the plaintiff and therefore not nding. The suit was decreed in full, declaring Hamid to be the owner by adverse binding. The suit was decreed in full, declaring Hamid to be the owner by adverse nding. The suit was decreed in full, declaring Hamid to be the owner by adverse nding. The suit was decreed in full, declaring Hamid to be the owner by adverse possession and granting injunction against the Wakf Board. possession and granting injunction against the Wakf Board. possession and granting injunction against the Wakf Board. 7. Aggrieved, the Wakf Board filed the present Regular Second Appeal. Aggrieved, the Wakf Board filed the present Regular Second Appeal. Aggrieved, the Wakf Board filed the present Regular Second Appeal. Aggrieved, the Wakf Board filed the present Regular Second Appeal. of learned counsel for the parties Submissions of learned counsel for the parties of learned counsel for the parties 8. appellant submits that the Appellate Court Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Appellate Court appellant submits that the Appellate Court Learned counsel for the as there is no erred in deciding Issue No.1 in favour of respondent No.1/plaintiff as there is no erred in deciding Issue No.1 in favour of respondent No.1 erred in deciding Issue No.1 in favour of respondent No.1 material on record to show that respondent No.1/ material on record to show that r in possession respondent No.1/plaintiff was owner in possession of the land in dispute. He further submits that the plea of plaintiff that he became of the land in dispute. He further submits that the plea of plaintiff that he became of the land in dispute. He further submits that the plea of plaintiff that he became of the land in dispute. He further submits that the plea of plaintiff that he became TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.25 09:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1990 (O&M) RSA-1334-1990 (O&M) -4- owner over the land in dispute by way of adverse possession is not proved as there owner over the land in dispute by way of adverse possession is not proved as there owner over the land in dispute by way of adverse possession is not proved as there owner over the land in dispute by way of adverse possession is not proved as there is entry in the revenue in the revenue record to show that father of the plaintiff was in permissive to show that father of the plaintiff was in permissive . He further submits that the land in question duly vests with the Punjab possession. He further submits that the land in question duly vests with the Punjab . He further submits that the land in question duly vests with the Punjab . He further submits that the land in question duly vests with the Punjab Wakf Board. 9. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that plaintiff/respondent Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that plaintiff/respondent Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that plaintiff/respondent Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that plaintiff/respondent ancestors No.1 was in actual possession of the land in dispute from the time of his ancestors No.1 was in actual possession of the land in dispute from the time of his No.1 was in actual possession of the land in dispute from the time of his and he was continuously in cultivating possession of the and he was continuously even possession of the the land in dispute even efore, the land belongs to him as his adverse after death of his father. Therefore, the land belongs to him as his adverse efore, the land belongs to him as his adverse after death of his f owners has ripened into ownership. possession against owners has ripened into ownership. possession against Findings 10. Plaintiff derives his right, interest and title qua the property in dispute Plaintiff derives his right, interest and title qua the property in dispute Plaintiff derives his right, interest and title qua the property in dispute Plaintiff derives his right, interest and title qua the property in dispute on the basis of adverse possession against true owners without disclosing the on the basis of adverse possession against true owners without disclosing the on the basis of adverse possession against true owners without disclosing the on the basis of adverse possession against true owners without disclosing the the ownership of Wakf Board in suit property. names of true owners and denying the ownership of Wakf Board in suit property. the ownership of Wakf Board in suit property. names of true owners and against whom plaintiff claims his possession as hostile and Plaint is silent as to against whom plaintiff claims his possession as hostile and against whom plaintiff claims his possession as hostile and Plaint is silent as to The claim of ownership by adverse possession has to satisfy the well- adverse. The claim of ownership by adverse possession has to satisfy the well The claim of ownership by adverse possession has to satisfy the well The claim of ownership by adverse possession has to satisfy the well settled requirements of law possession must be continuous, open, hostile to uirements of law i.e. the possession must be continuous, open, hostile to possession must be continuous, open, hostile to by the intention to possess as owner. In the the true owner, and accompanied by the intention to possess as owner. In the by the intention to possess as owner. In the the true owner, and accompanied present case, the plaintiff himself relies upon entries in the revenue records which present case, the plaintiff himself relies upon entries in the revenue records which present case, the plaintiff himself relies upon entries in the revenue records which present case, the plaintiff himself relies upon entries in the revenue records which repeatedly describe his father, Jumna, and thereafter himself, not as owners but as repeatedly describe his father, Jumna, and thereafter himself, not as owners but as repeatedly describe his father, Jumna, and thereafter himself, not as owners but as repeatedly describe his father, Jumna, and thereafter himself, not as owners but as persons recorded in the cultivation column as ‘ persons recorded in the cultivation column under the title of as ‘Gair Marusi’ under the title of governmental or public authorities. Such entries clearly establish that the nature of governmental or public authorities. Such entries clearly establish that the nature of governmental or public authorities. Such entries clearly establish that the nature of governmental or public authorities. Such entries clearly establish that the nature of will and not hostile to the their possession was permissive or at best as a tenant-at-will and not hostile to the their possession was permissive or at best as a tenant their possession was permissive or at best as a tenant ithout the animus of open hostility real owner. The mere longevity of possession, without the animus of open hostility real owner. The mere longevity of possession, w real owner. The mere longevity of possession, w This is and denial of the title of the true owner, cannot ripen into ownership. This is and denial of the title of the true owner, cannot ripen into ownership. and denial of the title of the true owner, cannot ripen into ownership. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.25 09:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1990 (O&M) RSA-1334-1990 (O&M) -5- particularly so when plaintiff is specifically denying the ownership of Wakf Board so when plaintiff is specifically denying the ownership of Wakf Board so when plaintiff is specifically denying the ownership of Wakf Board so when plaintiff is specifically denying the ownership of Wakf Board ill in revenue record. and is shown as tenant-at-will in revenue record. and is shown as tenant 11. oming to the next contention of the plaintiff that notification Coming to the next contention of the plaintiff that notification oming to the next contention of the plaintiff that notification oming to the next contention of the plaintiff that notification declaring Wakf Board as owner has no effect and is not binding upon plaintiff. effect and is not binding upon plaintiff ring Wakf Board as owner has no effect and is not binding upon plaintiff The same is also devoid of any force. The notification produced by the Wakf is also devoid of any force. The notification produced by the Wakf The notification produced by the Wakf in dispute as wakf property. Once such Board, Exhibit D1, records the land in dispute as wakf property. Once such in dispute as wakf property. Once such Board, Exhibit D1, records the land notification is issued in the official gazette under the Wakf Act, it carries with it a notification is issued in the official gazette under the Wakf Act, it carries with it a notification is issued in the official gazette under the Wakf Act, it carries with it a notification is issued in the official gazette under the Wakf Act, it carries with it a presumption of correctness and finality unless specifically challenged in presumption of correctness and finality unless specifically challenged in presumption of correctness and finality unless specifically challenged in presumption of correctness and finality unless specifically challenged in aintiff did not challenge accordance with law before the competent forum. The plaintiff did not challenge accordance with law before the competent forum. The pl accordance with law before the competent forum. The pl the notification by any statutory proceeding but only alleged that it was done the notification by any statutory proceeding but only alleged that it was done the notification by any statutory proceeding but only alleged that it was done the notification by any statutory proceeding but only alleged that it was done behind his back. The plea of want of notice cannot invalidate a statutory behind his back. The plea of want of notice cannot invalidate a statutory behind his back. The plea of want of notice cannot invalidate a statutory behind his back. The plea of want of notice cannot invalidate a statutory in the notification published under the Act, particularly when wakf properties vest in the notification published under the Act, particularly when wakf properties vest notification published under the Act, particularly when wakf properties vest Board by operation of law. The notification has statutory force, and the civil court Board by operation of law. The notification has statutory force, and the civil court Board by operation of law. The notification has statutory force, and the civil court Board by operation of law. The notification has statutory force, and the civil court cannot ignore its binding effect unless set aside by the appropriate forum. cannot ignore its binding effect unless set aside by the appropriate forum. cannot ignore its binding effect unless set aside by the appropriate forum. Conclusion 12. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered that the findings of the lower appellate court recognising ownership of the opinion that the findings of the lower appellate court recognising ownership of the that the findings of the lower appellate court recognising ownership of the that the findings of the lower appellate court recognising ownership of the plaintiff by adverse possession are plaintiff by adverse possession are plaintiff by adverse possession are plaintiff by adverse possession are legally unsustainable. The plaintiff’s legally unsustainable. The plaintiff’s legally unsustainable. The plaintiff’s legally unsustainable. The plaintiff’s possession, though long, was permissive in character and did not have the possession, though long, was permissive in character and did not have the possession, though long, was permissive in character and did not have the possession, though long, was permissive in character and did not have the necessary hostility to ripen into ownership. necessary hostility to ripen i notification (Exhibit D1) nto ownership. The notification (Exhibit D1) conclusively establishes the title of the Wakf Board. conclusively establishes the title of the Wakf Board. conclusively establishes the title of the Wakf Board. 13. The judgment and decree of the lower appellate court dated The judgment and decree of the lower appellate court dated The judgment and decree of the lower appellate court dated The judgment and decree of the lower appellate court dated 1989 is accordingly set aside, and that of the trial Court dated 21.02.1989 is accordingly set aside, and that of the trial 08.03.1990 is accordingly set aside, and that of the trial upheld. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.25 09:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1990 (O&M) RSA-1334-1990 (O&M) -6- 14. 15.
Decision
No order as to costs. The appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. The appeal is allowed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. August 20, 2025 2025 tripti (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking speaking : Speaking Whether speaking/non : Yes/No : Yes/No Whether reportable Whether reportable TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.25 09:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document