Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1142 (PNJ)

Parkash Kaur v. Dhian Singh

2002-10-28

P.RAM

body2002
ORDER P. Ram, F.C. - This is a revision petition against the order dated 29.12.2000 of Shri Bhagwan Singh, IAS, Additional Commissioner Appeals, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar vide which he dismissed a revision petition against the order dated 19.7.1995 of Shri H. S. Pabla, PCS, Sub Divisional Officer-cum- Collector, Balachaur vide which the Sub Divisional Collector also dismissed an appeal against the order dated 31.10.1994 of Asstt. Collector IInd Grade vide which the Asstt. Collector IInd Grade had ordered the correction of Khasra Girdawari in a case between the parties. 2. Briefly stated the facts are as under : Dhian Singh son of Piara Singh and others, residents of village Kamalpur, Tehsil Balachaur, District Hoshiarpur now in District Nawanshahr made an application to the Asstt. Collector IInd Grade, Balachaur on 14.7.1994 seeking correction of Khasra Girdawari in respect of land measuring 6 Kanal 1 Marla, situated in the revenue estate of village Kamalpur, Hadbast No. 457, Tehsil Balachaur w.e.f. Kharif 1990 onwards against petitioners Darshan Singh and others. Dhian Singh son of Piara Singh did not appear before the Asstt. Collector IInd Grade despite ordinary notices and proclamation in the village and was proceeded against ex parte. Subsequently the Asstt. Collector IInd Grade visited the spot for on the spot verification of the possession and finally on the basis of spot inspection passed an order dated 31.10.1994 for correcting Khasra Girdawari in respect of 2 Kanal out of 3 Kanal 16 Marla, comprising in Khasra No. 3//6(3-6), 16 Marla out of 1 Kanal 1 Marla comprising in Khasra No. 5/12/2/1 min and 10 Marla out of 1 Kanal comprising in Khasra No. 5/12/2/1 min in respect of Dhian Singh son of Piara Singh. It was also observed by the Asstt. Collector IInd Grade that Khasra No. 5//11/13/5/1 (1-0) which was entered in the application for the correction, was in fact indicated as 5/13/3/l/1 in the copy of the Khasra Girdawari. Accordingly no order was passed in respect of this Khasra number. The correction was made for Kharif 1990 to 1994 as Gair Marusi tenant at the rent of Rs. 500/- per acre. An appeal was filed against this order of Asstt. Collector IInd Grade before the Sub Divisional Collector, Balachaur who vide his order dated 19.7.1995 dismissed the same after visiting the spot in the presence of both the parties and other respectables. 500/- per acre. An appeal was filed against this order of Asstt. Collector IInd Grade before the Sub Divisional Collector, Balachaur who vide his order dated 19.7.1995 dismissed the same after visiting the spot in the presence of both the parties and other respectables. Against the order of the Collector, a revision was filed before the Commissioner. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and also gone through the written arguments submitted by them. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Asstt. Collector IInd Grade though had recorded in his order dated 31.10.1994 that he had conducted spot inspection but no proceeding of the spot inspection was drawn and the same was not available on the file. Similarly even though the Sub Divisional Collector, Balachaur had also recorded that at the time of entertaining the appeal preferred by the petitioners he had conducted spot inspection but he too failed to draw any spot inspection report. The counsel has further argued that a perusal of the order of the Asstt. Collector IInd Grade indicated that correction of Khasra Girdawari made by him on the basis of spot inspection was rather fictitious as Khasra No. 5//12/l/1 min total (1-1) out of which 6 Marla of land has been shown in the possession of the respondent, was never indicated in the original application for the correction of Khasra Girdawari. Similarly Khasra No. 5//12/2/1/1 min (1-1) was non-existent as the actual area of this Khasra number (0-18) and was under the occupation of one Baldev Singh who had never been impleaded as party and similarly Khasra No. 5//13/5/1/1 was not in existence but was indicated by the respondents in the application for correction of Khasra Girdawari which showed that the Asstt. Collector IInd Grade had wrongly corrected the Khasra Girdawari and had failed to give his conclusion by drawing up the physical spot inspection report. The Collector Sub Division, Balachaur had also committed the same mistake. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that both the Asstt. Collector IInd Grade had wrongly corrected the Khasra Girdawari and had failed to give his conclusion by drawing up the physical spot inspection report. The Collector Sub Division, Balachaur had also committed the same mistake. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that both the Asstt. Collector IInd Grade and the Collector Sub Division, Balachaur had correctly ordered the correction of Khasra Girdawari after spot inspection and that the correction ordered had duly been incorporated in the Jamabandi for the years 1994-95 and 1999-2000 and that the Commissioner had taken due notice of the Jamabandi for the year 1994-95 while passing the impugned order and has further argued that since the correction had found entries in the Jamabandi, through the current revision petition, the petitioner could not seek change of entries in the lastest Jamabandi which remedy was available only in the Civil Court. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner had further argued that the Commissioner had erroneously passed the order holding that the entry had been recorded in the Jamabandi because the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar had on 31.10.1995 ordered that the entries be not reflected in the Jarnabandi till further orders and that the order passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division was duly reflected in the Jamabandi in Rapat Roznamcha No. 276 dated 9.4.1996, in red ink. The learned counsel for the respondent is unable to challenge this factual position. 6. There is no doubt that if the entries have found a place in the Jamabandi no correction could be carried out by the Revenue Officers and the relief was available only in the Civil Court. The instant case is somewhat different. The Asstt. Collector and Grade and the Collector Sub Division, Balachaur had passed patently wrong orders without bothering for proper verification of the record and also without drawing up the physical verification reports. The so- called physical verification reports probably are resting in their minds only but definitely are not a part of the official record. It is also strange to note that even though the Commissioner Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar vide his order dated 31.10.1995 had passed the order for not reflecting any change in the Khasra Girdawari in the subsequent Jarnabandi, and the same was duly recorded vide Rapat Roznamcha No. 276 dated 9.4.1996 in red ink in column 12 of the Jainabandi, the correction on the basis of order of the Asstt. Collector IInd Grade was still carried out which is nothing but a contempt of the orders of the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar. The learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to cite any ruling where the circumstances of the case were similar to the one under consideration. The Commissioner Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar had ordered non-reflectance of the correction made by the Asstt. Collector IInd Grade, Balachaur and subject matter is pending in this Court and the correction ordered by the Asstt. Collector IInd Grade was also not based on record. Under these circumstances I strongly feel that the orders of the Asstt. Collector IInd Grade are beyond jurisdiction and have been passed without proper application of mind. The Sub Divisional Collector, Balachaur has also passed order on appeal without proper application of his mind and without drawing up the proceedings of the spot inspection. Both these offices have committed serious irregularities in the performance of their duties and need to be proceeded against departmentally after following proper procedure. The Commissioner has also failed to appreciate the facts of the case and chosen the soft option of dismissing the revision petition on the pretext of entries having been made in the Jamabandi for the year 1994-95 without taking the trouble that the stay order had duly been given by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division. Accordingly I see no option but to set aside the order of the Asstt. Collector IInd Grade and the Sub Divisional Collector as well as the Commissioner and accept the revision petition. Since a lot of time has passed, there is no justification for remanding the case to the Asstt. Collector IInd Grade for any fresh adjudication. Accordingly, the application for the correction of Khasra Girdawari filed by the respondents before the Asstt. Collector IInd Grade is also being held as improper application which deserves rejection. The respondents if they have any grouse, may go in for a fresh correction of Khasra Girdawari and if they are really in possession of the land in dispute. The Khasra Girdawari entries would continue to be reflected as they were before the filing of the application for the correction of Khasra Girdawari by the respondents. To be communicated. Petition accepted.