-1- 216 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-2515-1998 Date of Decision: 29.04.2026 PUNAJB WAKF BOARD ....Appellant Versus GRAM PANCHAYT ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Prateek Mahajan, Advocate Ms. Prerna Malhotra, Advocate Mr. Mayank Vashishth, Advocate for the appellant. PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL) Present appeal has been preferred by appellant/defendant being aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 18.07.1996, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palwal whereby suit preferred by respondent/plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction was partly allowed qua land measuring 64 kanals 18 marlas as well as by judgment and decree dated 04.04.1998, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad, whereby first appeal preferred by appellant/defendant was dismissed being without any merit. 2. Dispute in the present case is short and simple. It was the case of respondent/plaintiff that there are two parcels of land, one measuring 64 kanals 18 marlas comprised in khatauni No.1007 and second measuring 157 kanals 16 marlas comprised in khatauni No.1014. On the other hand, it was the case of appellant/defendant that both the parcels of land belong to appellant/defendant being wakf property. CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.04.30 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2515-1998 -2- 3. It is worth noticing that though appellant/defendant had duly filed a written statement wherein it had denied the case set up by respondent/plaintiff in the plaint, however, its defence was struck off and no evidence was led by appellant/defendant. Respondent/plaintiff had duly produced Ex.P1 revenue records (jamabandi for the year 1984-85) pertaining to both parcels of land. After appreciating evidence produced by respondent/plaintiff and after taking into consideration entries made in revenue record, learned Court of first instance concluded that it is respondent/plaintiff who owns the suit property comprised in khatauni No.1007 measuring 64 kanals and 18 marlas. 4. However, claim of respondent/plaintiff with regard to land measuring 157 kanals 16 marlas comprised in khatauni No.1014 was rejected on the basis of evidence led before the Courts below. Learned Court of first instance had duly referred to jamabandi pertaining to land measuring 157 kanal 16 marlas and had concluded that said land as per revenue record has been shown to be ‘kabristan’ and has been mutated in the name of appellant/defendant and, therefore, respondent/plaintiff has failed to prove its ownership over the same. 5. Perusal of record shows that learned Court of first instance has duly taken note of revenue entries i.e. jamabandi for the year 1984-85 (Ex.P1) wherein respondent/plaintiff has been shown to be the owner of land measuring 64 kanals 18 marlas comprised in khatauni No.1007, whereas its actual physical possession has been shown to be with one Phool Shah and Amal Shah in equal shares in the capacity of Bhondedaran. Accordingly, respondent/plaintiff was declared owner of suit property, though injunction was declined as it was not found to be in possession of the suit property. CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.04.30 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2515-1998 -3- There is no evidence on behalf of appellant/defendant to show that suit property vested in Punjab Wakf Board or to show that it was dedicated to Allah to become a wakf property. No ‘wakf by user’ could also be shown by appellant/defendant. 6. In these circumstances, I do not find any error with the conclusion drawn by learned Court of first instance affirmed by learned First Appellate Court. Present appeal is without any merit, hence is dismissed. 7. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of accordingly. (PARMOD GOYAL) 29.04.2026 JUDGE chiranjeev Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.04.30 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document