Waqf Allah Tala vs Nagar Panchayat, Lalkuan

Having heard the pros and cons on the question of admission of this second appeal, it transpires that the subject matter (property) under litigation is ad measuring 64x51, i.e. 3264 square feet. This land is part and parcel of a big area of 220 x 100, i.e. 22000 square feet situated in the town area limits of small city Lalkuan, District Nainital. Nagar Panchayat manifested its intentions to erect a market complex along with pucca road (kharanja) on the property, in question, on 5.1.2004. So, an Original Suit No. 04/2004 was presented by the plaintiff against the Nagar Panchayat seeking prohibitory injunction against the same which could be decreed on 19.10.2015 by the learned Civil Judge. Feeling aggrieved, the Nagar Panchayat preferred the Fist Appeal No. 54/2015, which was allowed, resulting in the dismissal of the suit. Finding of the Appellate Court is under challenge in this second appeal.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the papers on record, I find that at least 90 years ago, this land along with other appurtenant area, in fact, was the reserved forest land. Thereafter on declaration of the revenue village, it became part and parcel of such village and with the passage of time, the existence of Nagar

Panchayat came at the spot. So, such land came under the management of Nagar Panchayat.

Uttar Pradesh Central Board of Waqft suo moto registered this land under its control, as envisaged under Section 36 of the Waqf Act 1995 and waqf period was shown in the concerned registered w.e.f. 26.6.2003 to 25.6.2006. Such board issued a certificate to Mr. Nasir Ahmad, the plaintiff herein, appointing him Mutwali for three years. The entry in the Waqf Board was challenged by way of filing the Civil Suit No. 1/2015, wherein the plaintiff admitted granting of the lease to him by the Waqf Board.

That apart, it appears that father of Nasir Ahmad had also applied for granting of lease of this land in the office of Collector concerned. The matter was thoroughly investigated and it was found that since the land was of Nagar Panchayat, hence granting of the lease was not possible.

It has been in the evidence that Nagar Panchayat has laid a pucca road/kharanja on this land and a purely provisional/temporary market is organized on such land, wherefor Tehwadari is recovered by the Nagar Panchayat.

It is also evident that appellant is no more in the exclusive possession showing at the strength of a bit of title on the land in his favour.

In conclusion, I find that the First Appellate Court has rightly dismissed the suit. No substantial question of law arises in this second appeal. It is dismissed at the very threshold.