but the plaintiffs failed to prove their case. On the contrary, it was found that the suit property in that case had been used for religious purpose i.e. for mosque or burial ground or for maintenance of mosque from time immemorial. Accordingly, this judgment has no applicability to the facts of the instant case. Much emphasis on behalf of the petitioner was laid on the case of Sayyed Ali (supra) . In that case, there was some suo motu inquiry by Tehsildar. It was held that finding of Tehsildar that property in dispute is not Wakf property is erroneous and without jurisdiction. In that case, Mutawallis managing the property involved in that case had executed long term lease in favour of the defendants. Thus, in that case, dispute was between Wakf Board and Mutawallis and in view thereof, the notification under Section 5 (2) of the Act was held to be binding on Mutawallis. In the instant case, however, the dispute of Wakf Board is with Nagar Panchayat and therefore, notification under Section 5 (2) of the Act is not binding on the defendant. Judgments in the cases of Punjab Wakf Board, Ambala Cantt vs. Punjab State through the Collector, Hoshiarpur (supra) and Punjab Wakf Board vs. Chhailu (supra) are not applicable because in those cases, there were jamabandi entries conclusively proving that the land in dispute was for the graveyard. In the instant case, revenue records depicts to the contrary. The plaintiff, on the other hand, has not even pleaded that the suit land was graveyard or was being used as such. There is also no pleading or evidence to depict that there is Muslim population in the
