Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 370 (PNJ)

Salwinder Singh v. Bansa Singh @ Harbans Singh

2002-04-04

KARL REDDY

body2002
ORDER Karl Reddy, FC. - This is a petition under section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 seeking to revise the order dated 23.1.2002 of the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, and the order dated 14.2.2001 of the SDM-cum- Collector, Patti; and to restore the order dated 21.6.2000 of the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Khem Karan, ordering the correction of Khasra Girdawari for the crops kharif 1995 to date, of land measuring 104 k comprising in Khewat No. 309, Khatauni No. 854 as per jamabandi for the year 1993-94, situated in the revenue estate of Mehndipur, tehsil Patti, district Amritsar. 2. The main ground taken in the petition is that impugned order of the Commissioner violates section 45 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 whereunder only a civil court can order correction of an entry in the record of rights on institution of a suit for declaration under the Specific Relief Act. The order of the Commissioner clearly states that the entries in the jamabandi for 1998-99 shall not be altered. The Commissioner has ordered correction of the Khasra Girdawari which is not part of the record-of-rights w.e.f. Kharif 1999. There is no illegality. 3. Labh Singh was recorded as in cultivating possession both in the jamabandi for 1989-90 and the Khasra Girdawari up to March, 1990. The Khasra Girdawari was changed in favour of Nachhattar Singh on the basis of the consent accorded by Labh Singh in the roznamcha rapat No. 229 dated 22.3.1990. The Khasra Girdawari of the disputed land was changed in favour of Nachhattar Singh w.e.f. Rabi 1990. This entry continued in the Khasra Girdawari for subsequent harvests and was incorporated in the jamabandis for 1993-94 and 1998-99. 4. Labh Singh claims that he never consented to any change. The Commissioner has rightly inferred from the facts that Labh Singh is a Fauji allottee, that the land was not cultivated in Rabi 1990, that the entry regarding lagan has been incorporated without any authority, and that the roznamcha rapat was not attested by a lambardar as required under law, that mischief was afoot; and presumed continuity of possession in favour of Labh Singh. There is no reason to disagree. The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.