Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1130 (PNJ)

Tarlok Singh v. Amar Singh

2002-10-23

B.C.GUPTA

body2002
ORDER Dr. B.C. Gupta, FC. - This revision petition has been filed under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, against the order dated 25.1.2001, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, and against the orders dated 5.8.1999 and 7.11.1997 passed by the Collector, Phagwara and the Assistant Collector 2nd grade, Phagwara respectively, in a case regarding correction of khasra girdawari. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents made an application before the Assistant Collector 2nd grade, Phagwara regarding correction of khasra girdawari for khasra Nos. 18//2/1 min (1-8) and 18//1/2 min (1-8) situated in village Nasirabad, tehsil Phagwara, District Kapurthala. The Assistant Collector 2nd grade vide his order dated 4.10.1996 ordered the correction of khasra girdawari of the land in question in favour of the respondents w.e.f. kharif 1993. An appeal was made before the Collector by the petitioner against this order and the case was remanded to the Assistant Collector 2nd grade for fresh decision. The Assistant Collector 2nd grade vide order dated 7.11.1997 decided that the case should be kept pending as a civil suit was gong on between the parties. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order before the Collector, who dismissed the same while holding that the respondents were actually in cultivating possession of the suit land. The petitioner filed a revision petition in the court of Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar, who dismissed the Revision petition saying that the Collector, Phagwara had decided the case after spot inspection on 5.8.1999 and there was no ground to interfere in the findings of the lower revenue officers. It is against this order that the present revision petition has come up. 3. The arguments in this case were partly heard on 2.9.2002 and it was decided to call the concerned tehsildar and the patwari along with the latest jamabandi and khasra girdawari registers. The case was then heard on 23.9.2002, when Shri Paramjit Singh, kanungo, halqa Rehana Jattan and Shri Piara Singh, patwari halqa Narur appeared and produced the record. It was found from the khasra girdawari register for the years 1993-94 to 1997-98 that the correction in khasra girdawari for two numbers 18//1/2/2(1-8) and 18//2/1/1 (1-8) had been ordered to be made in favour of the respondents w.e.f. kharif 1993 onwards. The new jamabandi for the village was made for the year 1997-98. It was found from the khasra girdawari register for the years 1993-94 to 1997-98 that the correction in khasra girdawari for two numbers 18//1/2/2(1-8) and 18//2/1/1 (1-8) had been ordered to be made in favour of the respondents w.e.f. kharif 1993 onwards. The new jamabandi for the village was made for the year 1997-98. This jamabandi was supposed to carry entry in the khasra girdawari for the crop rabi 1998 in column No. 5 of the new jamabandi. However, a perusal of the latest jamabandi for the year 1997-98 revealed that the girdawari entry in the cultivation column was mentioned in the name of Tarlok Singh, petitioner as khud kast. It is clear that the correction made in the girdawari w.e.f. kharif 1993 should have found place in the new jamabandi, but this was not done due to the negligence of the concerned revenue officials. The kanungo as well as the patwari admitted that there had been lapse in making the new jamabandi, but they attributed the lapse to the then kanungo and the then patwari, saying that they were not at fault in the case. The jamabandi is attested by Shri Mulkh Raj, naib-tehsildar, who is still working as naib-tehsildar in the area. It was decided on 23.9.2002 to call the naib-tehsildar along with the kanungo and the patwari on the next date i.e. 8.10.2002. On 8.10.2002, the record was examined again and the final arguments of the two counsels were heard. 4. It has been argued by Shri A.S Gill, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner Tarlok Singh that the respondents have failed to explain as to how they came into the possession of the land in question. He invited my attention to the cultivation column in the jamabandi for the year 1992-93 and the latest jamabandi for the year 1997-98, saying that the entries therein, were in favour of the petitioner Tarlok Singh. It was not understood as to how they could move an application for correction of khasra girdawari on 27.9.1996. Further, the order dated 4.10.1996 passed by the Assistant Collector 2nd grade has been set-aside by the Collector on 19.10.1997 and hence, it could not have found mention in the revenue record. It was not understood as to how they could move an application for correction of khasra girdawari on 27.9.1996. Further, the order dated 4.10.1996 passed by the Assistant Collector 2nd grade has been set-aside by the Collector on 19.10.1997 and hence, it could not have found mention in the revenue record. The learned counsel further invited my attention to a copy of an order passed on 21.9.2002 by the Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Phagwara, according to which, the respondents have been restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff on the disputed land. The learned counsel has also placed on record copies of the orders dated 19.3.1997 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Phagwara and order dated 28.8.2001 passed by the District Judge, Kapurthala. According to the learned counsel it was very clear from these orders that the petitioner was in possession of the land in question. He further invited my attention to the ruling contained in 1979 PLJ 102, saying that the entries in the jamabandi are deemed to continue unless some evidence is there that any change has occurred in the same. There were rulings contained in 1980 PLJ 569 and 1993 PLJ 358, saying that if khasra girdawari entries find mention in the jamabandi, they cannot be changed. Further, it has been laid down in 1997(1) PLJ 18 that a revenue officer is supposed to record a detailed note for spot inspection without which, his finding is of no use. 5. Shri G.S. Nagra, the learned counsel for the respondents stated that when the proceedings were going on before the Collector, the two parties agreed on 30.7.1999 that the spot should be inspected and correction in the entries of khasra girdawari be made after verifying the cultivating possession at the spot. Accordingly, the Collector visited the spot. The Collector has held that as a result of spot inspection and inquiry about the actual cultivating possession over the suit land, he was convinced that the respondents were in actual cultivating possession of the suit land. The injunctions obtained from the civil court were simply based on the entries in the jamabandi, which were null and void. The khasra girdawari for the years 1993-94 to 1997-98 has been rightly corrected by the revenue officers, but they have committed a mistake while preparing the new jamabandi for the year 1997-98. The injunctions obtained from the civil court were simply based on the entries in the jamabandi, which were null and void. The khasra girdawari for the years 1993-94 to 1997-98 has been rightly corrected by the revenue officers, but they have committed a mistake while preparing the new jamabandi for the year 1997-98. The entries in the jamabandi 1997-98 should, therefore, be ordered to be corrected. 6. I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me. It is very clear from the record that the girdawari has been ordered to be corrected w.e.f. kharif 1993 and entries duly made in the khasra girdawari register for the crop kharif 1993 onwards. The corrected entry has not been changed further and it should have found place in the jamabandi for the year 1997-98. Even the naib- tehsildar, the kanungo and the patwari who were heard in person, have admitted before me that the entries should have fund place in the new jamabandi but this was not done. For this lapse, the then kanungo, Joginder Lal and the then patwari, Rajinder Singh are responsible, against whom, disciplinary action needs to be taken by the Financial Commissioner, Revenue. Shri Mulkh Raj, the present naib-tehsildar was also the naib-tehsildar of the area when the new jamabandi was made. It is the duty of a circle revenue officer to carry out 25% checking of the entries in the new jamabandi. It is the duty of the kanungo to carry out 100% checking of the entries of the new jamabandi but they have not done so. The Financial Commissioner, Revenue is, therefore, requested to take necessary disciplinary action against Shri Mulkh Raj, naib- tehsildar, Shri Joginder Lal, kanungo and Shri Rajinder Singh, patwari for their lapse. 7. In so far as the merits of the case are concerned, it is very clear that the Assistant Collector 2nd grade passed an order on 4.10.96 after spot inspection and after recording the statement of the parties on the spot that the respondents are in cultivating possession of the suit land. Later on, the Collector vide his order dated 5.8.1999 has made the things very clear saying that he visited the spot and recorded the statements of the persons present at the spot. Later on, the Collector vide his order dated 5.8.1999 has made the things very clear saying that he visited the spot and recorded the statements of the persons present at the spot. As per the spot inspection, the respondents were found to be in cultivating possession of the land in dispute. It is a settled law that while making entries in the girdawari register, a revenue officer is supposed to record the actual possession on the spot. The said possession may not have been obtained through legal means but even then, the factum of actual possession is to be incorporated in the revenue record. In so far as the civil courts orders are concerned, the restraint order against the respondents is based on the entries in the jamabandi. It is, however, not clear from the orders of the civil court as to who is in actual cultivating possession of the land. The position is clear only from the spot inspections made by the Collector and the Assistant Collector 2nd grade. The petitioner has not been able to give any evidence to show that he is in actual physical possession of the land in question. It is, therefore, held that the order passed by the Collector dated 5.8.1999 reflects the true picture as on the spot and the same is up-held. In so far as the jamabandi for the year 1997-98 is concerned, it is very clear that the entry in favour of the respondents as recorded in the girdawari register has not been incorporated in the new jamabandi due to negligence shown by the revenue officials and they had admitted their fault to this effect. It is clear, therefore, that there is a patent defect while framing the new jamabandi and the revenue officers are not debarred from correcting the same as held by the learned Financial Commissioner in the case Gobind Ram v. Kaura Ram, 1988 PLJ 462. The revision petition is, therefore, ordered to be dismissed, the orders of the lower revenue officers are up-held and the jamabandi for the year 1997-98 is ordered to be corrected in the cultivating column in favour of the respondents. The order in this case was kept reserved on 8.10.2002 and pronounced today. All concerned may be informed accordingly. Revision dismissed.