Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surinder Kumar vs Punjab Wakf Board on 16 October, 2014
Author: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Jain
VINOD KUMAR
2014.11.04 10:47
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh
CR No.7113 of 2014 [1]
*****
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR No.7113 of 2014
Date of decision:16.10.2014
Surinder Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
Punjab Waqf Board, Ambala Cantt. ...Respondent
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain
Present: Mr. J.S.Brar, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
*****
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.
This petition is filed against the order dated 30.09.2014, dismissing the objection filed by the petitioner under Section 47 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (here-in-after referred to as the "CPC") for dismissing the execution application moved by the respondent.
In brief, the respondent filed a suit on 15.09.2006 before the Tribunal under the Wakf Act, 1995 (here-in-after referred to as the "Tribunal") for possession by way of ejectment of the petitioner from the building measuring 300 sq. yards, which is a part of the Mosque building bearing MC No.B-II/679, situated at Railway Road, Muktsar and for recovery of `10,00,000/- as compensation on account of its illegal use and occupation along with interest @ 1% per month till its realization.
The petitioner contested the suit alleging that he used to pay VINOD KUMAR 2014.11.04 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CR No.7113 of 2014 [2] ***** `250/- per month to the representative of the respondent and is not in arrears of any money. It is also claimed that he has become owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession.
On the pleadings of the parties, as many as 5 issues were framed by the trial Court:-
"1. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction?OPP.
2. Whether this court has got jurisdiction to try the present suit?OPP.
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession of suit land?OPP.
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation along with interest for illegal use and occupation of the suit land?OPP.
5. Relief."
The trial Court decreed the suit of the respondent on 10.03.2008 for ejectment of the defendant and the plaintiff was also held entitled to recover `250/- per year from 1987-88 till the date of decree.
Initially, the petitioner filed FAO No.1642 of 2008 to challenge the decree dated 10.03.2008, however, the said appeal was dismissed by this Court as not maintainable vide its order dated 25.03.2010, giving liberty to the petitioner to avail his other remedy, if any, in accordance with law. The petitioner then filed CWP No.19275 of 2011 in which he relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Gobindram (dead) VINOD KUMAR 2014.11.04 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CR No.7113 of 2014 [3] ***** through LRs. V. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf, (2010) 8 Supreme Court Cases 726 alleging that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to pass an order of eviction as the remedy lies before the Civil Court. The writ petition was also dismissed on 19.07.2013 on the ground that the petitioner has failed to lead any evidence to prove that he had ever been inducted as a tenant in the property of the Wakf Board, rather his consistent stand before the Tribunal as well as before this Court is of an unauthorized occupant because he has been claiming ownership on the basis of adverse possession. The petitioner filed LPA No.1345 of 2013 to challenge the order dismissing his petition on 19.07.2013 but the said intra-court appeal was also dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 02.08.2013 observing that "it is also on record that after taking land on licence from the respondent Wakf Board, the appellant made an attempt to claim ownership on the basis of adverse possession, which he failed to prove".
When the respondent filed the execution in order to take the possession of the property in dispute, the petitioner filed objection under Section 47 read with Section 151 of the CPC. The said objection has been dismissed by the Executing Court observing that even the SLP filed by the petitioner against the order of the Division Bench of this Court, dismissing his appeal, has already been dismissed on 02.01.2014 and at this stage, the objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Tribunal cannot be raised.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has again referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ramesh Gobindram's case (supra) to contend that since he was a licensee, therefore, the Civil Court had the VINOD KUMAR 2014.11.04 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CR No.7113 of 2014 [4] ***** jurisdiction and not the Tribunal.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and examining the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that there is a consistent effort on the part of the petitioner to delay the execution proceedings though he had lost in all the forums up to the Apex Court because he had himself taken a contradictory plea of becoming the owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession. Even otherwise, the judgment in Ramesh Gobindram's case (supra) is to the effect that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to pass the order of eviction of a tenant in occupation or sitting over its property, which is not the case of the petitioner at any stage and once his argument on the basis of the judgment in Ramesh Gobindram's case (supra) has already been rejected by the Single Bench in the writ petition and the said judgment is upheld upto the Apex Court as even the SLP has also been dismissed, the same argument cannot be allowed to be raised again as it amounts to misuse of process of law.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and hence, the same is hereby dismissed.
October 16, 2014 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE