Ranbir vs Suresh Malik And Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 8550 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Ranbir vs Suresh Malik And Others on 23 April, 2024

                                  Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055089




                                                          2024:PHHC:055089

CR-4696-2023 (O&M)                                              - 1-

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                      AT CHANDIGARH.

120                                CR-4696-2023 (O&M)
                                   Date of decision: 23.04.2024

Ranbir                                                      ...Petitioner.

                          Versus

Suresh Malik and others                                     ....Respondents.

                           ***

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR
                ----

Present:    Mr. Dinesh Maurya, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

                   ****

Sukhvinder Kaur, J.

By way of present revision petition, the petitioner has

challenged order dated 23.08.2022 (Annexure P-3), passed by Wakf

Tribunal, Rohtak, vide which the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 and

2, was decreed.

2. The brief facts of the case, as per the plaint, are that the land

measuring 2380 sq. yards out of Khasra No.199, total area 39 Kanal 08

Marla was leased out in favour of the plaintiffs alongwith Subhash son of

Hari Singh, Babu son of Sardar Khan, on a monthly rent of Rs.3200/- for a

period of three years, for residential purpose, vide lease order No.24/ lease-

Urban/F.No.2593/11-3308 dated 30.09.2011, after making payment of all

the dues, lease money etc. by the plaintiffs, vide receipt No.001 dated

13.10.2011 and receipt No.3169 dated 13.06.2011. It was alleged that then

1 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055089

2024:PHHC:055089

CR-4696-2023 (O&M) - 2-

NOC was obtained by the plaintiffs from the office of Haryana Wakf Board

after making payment of NOC and possession of the suit property was given

to the plaintiffs alongwith Subhash and Babu. It was further submitted that

till date the aforesaid lease orders have not been cancelled and there was no

violation on the part of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are rightful lessees of

the land owned by defendant No.1-Wakf Board, but defendants No.2 to 11

and other villagers are bent upon to interfere in the peaceful possession of

the plaintiffs by removing the bricks of room of the plot and to encroach

upon the land in dispute forcibly, illegally without having any right in any

manner. Defendant No.1 was issued legal notice dated 08.01.2012 through

counsel but no reply was given by him. Hence, the present suit was filed.

3. Defendant No.1 filed its written statement admitting the claim

of the plaintiffs.

4. Defendants No.2 to 9 filed their joint written statement by

pleading that defendant No.1 is not competent to lease out the suit property

in favour of the plaintiffs. Defendant No.1 was acting in collusion with the

plaintiffs and other goons with ulterior motive to dispossess defendants

No.9 to 11 and other persons, who claimed to be in possession continuously

since the time of their forefathers. It was also alleged that as suit property

was never utilized for Kabristan, so defendant No.1 has no authority to lease

out the suit property. Defendant No.9 is in actual physical possession of a

parcel of land depicted by letters ABCEFJIHG, measuring 678 sq, yards,

defendant No.10 is in possession of parcel of land depicted by letters

MNOP, measuring 494.4 sq. yards and defendant No.11 is in possession of a

2 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055089

2024:PHHC:055089

CR-4696-2023 (O&M) - 3-

piece of land depicted by letters KLMN, measuring 391.3 sq. yards and one

person namely, Sultan is in possession of a piece of land marked by letters

IJKL, measuring 466 sq. yards as detailed in the site plan attached with the

written statement. It was also averred that defendants No.9 to 11 and said

Sultan have been using their respective plots for domestic purposes like

keeping Bitoras, Bunga, tethering cattle, keeping fire-woods and putting and

storing cow-dung cakes etc. It was also alleged that the lease in favour of

the plaintiffs was just a paper work with the motive to cause harm and to

dispossess the occupants.

5. From the pleadings of the parties following issues were

framed:-

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for

permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable in

the present form? OPD

3. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the

present suit? OPD

4. Whether the present suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-

joinder of necessary parties? OPP

5. Relief.

6. Thereafter, in order to prove their case, plaintiffs Neeraj Hooda

and Suresh Malik appeared as PW1 and PW3 and also examined Ravinder

Saini as PW2. They also placed on record copies of site-plan Ex.P1 and P2,

copies of lease order Ex.P3 and P4 and copies of payment receipts Ex.P5

3 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055089

2024:PHHC:055089

CR-4696-2023 (O&M) - 4-

and P6.

7. Defendants No.6, 9 and 10 were proceeded against exparte and

defendants No.11 and 12 were given up. The remaining contesting

defendants No.2 to 5, 7 and 8 had examined Ranbir (defendant No.9) as

DW1, Subhash (defendant No.3) as DW2 and placed on record site-plan

Ex.D1.

8. After appreciating the evidence on record and hearing counsel

for the parties, the Wakf Tribunal decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. Hence,

the petitioner has knocked the doors of this Court by way of filing the

present revision petition.

9. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has contended that

defendant No.1 Wakf Board was not competent to lease out the suit property

in favour of the plaintiffs. Defendant No.1 has acted in collusion with the

plaintiffs with ulterior motive to dispossess the contesting defendants. He

has further contended that the documents tendered by the defendants had

not been considered by the Wakf Tribunal and it has been proved on record

that the contesting defendants have been using their respective plots for

domestic purposes like keeping Bitoras, Bunga, tethering cattle, keeping

fire-woods and putting and storing cow-dung cakes etc. He has urged that

the plaintiffs have no case in their favour and the impugned judgment is not

sustainable in the eyes of law.

10. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and has gone

through the relevant record.

11. In order to prove that the suit property was leased out in favour

4 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055089

2024:PHHC:055089

CR-4696-2023 (O&M) - 5-

of the plaintiffs alongwith Subhash and Babu, on a monthly rent of

Rs.3200/- for three years, for residential purposes, vide lease order No.24/

Lease-Urban/ F. No.2593/11-3308 dated 30.09.2011 (Ex.P3 and P4) and

NOC was obtained by the plaintiffs from the office of Haryana Wakf Board

after making payment of the NOC, vide receipts Ex.P5 and P6, plaintiff

No.1 Neeraj Hooda himself stepped into the witness box as PW1 and his

affidavit Ex.PW1/A, he has deposed on oath all the averments as made in

the plaint. His version has been duly corroborated by PW3-Suresh Malik

(plaintiff No.1) PW2-Ravinder Saini, Draftsman has proved copies of site-

plans Ex.P1 and P2.

12. Besides that, the plaintiffs have proved on record the copies of

lease orders Ex.P3 and P4 and copies of payment receipts Ex.P5 and P6 to

support the case of the plaintiffs regarding possession of the plaintiffs over

the suit property being lessee. It has also been proved that the said lease

order has not been cancelled till date. Defendant No.1 has admitted the

claim of the plaintiffs over the suit property has categorically submitted in

his written statement that he has no objection if the suit of the plaintiff was

decreed against defendants No.2 to 10.

13. But to rebut the aforesaid oral as well as documentary evidence

of the plaintiffs, the contesting defendants have just examined defendant

No.9 Ranbir and defendant No.3 Subhash as DW1 and DW2. But no

documentary evidence in rebuttal to the evidence led by the plaintiffs, has

been produced by the defendants. Even the Draftsman, who prepared the

site plan Ex.D1 has not been examined. So no reliance can be placed on the

5 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055089

2024:PHHC:055089

CR-4696-2023 (O&M) - 6-

site plan Ex.D1. The documents Ex.D1 to Ex.D33 that have been placed on

record also support the claim of the plaintiffs and the pleas taken by

defendant No.1 in its written statement. As already observed, defendant

No.1 in its written statement has admitted the claim of the plaintiffs over the

suit property. DW3 Khurshid Ahmad has also admitted the claim of the

plaintiffs over the suit property.

14. Thus, it has been rightly held that the plaintiffs are in

possession of the suit property as lessee under defendant No.1 as per lease

orders Ex.P3 and P4 and defendants No.2 to 10 have no concern with the

same. So the relief of permanent injunction has rightly been granted for

restraining defendants No.2 to 10 from interfering in possession of the

plaintiffs over the suit property forcibly and illegally, except in due course

of law.

15. Thus, there being no illegality or infirmity in the impugned

order, no interference therewith is called for while exercising the revisional

jurisdiction. The present revision petition being bereft of any merits stands

dismissed.

16. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of

accordingly.

(SUKHVINDER KAUR) JUDGE

23.04.2024.

komal
               Whether speaking/ reasoned       :      Yes/ No
               Whether Reportable               :      Yes/ No




                                 6 of 6