Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1236 (PNJ)

Pawan Kumar v. Tarsem Singh alias Sema

2005-12-05

B.K.SRIVASTAVA

body2005
ORDER B.K. Srivastava, FC. - This revision petition was dismissed by Shri P. Ram, Financial Commissioner Appeals on 6.11.2002. Review application of the petitioner was admitted by Shri R.P.S. Pawar, Financial Commissioner Appeals, my predecessor vide order dated 9.9.2003 on the ground that the petitioners counsel was not heard but his presence was inadvertently marked. 2. I heard the arguments of the counsel for the respondent on 27.10.2005 and perused the written arguments submitted by the counsel for the petitioner. This revision petition relates to correction of girdawari and an important ground taken in the revision is that despite order dated 9.10.1998 of Civil Judge, Mansa restraining the present respondent from dispossessing him, the respondent forcibly dispossessed him in May, 1999. Although the respondents application dated 20.2.1998 for correction of girdawari had earlier been declined by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Mansa vide order dated 9.7.1998 and his appeal was also dismissed by the Collector vide order dated 7.12.1998, the Commissioner (Appeals), Faridkot Division wrongly set aside these orders and remanded the case, vide order dated 14.2.2001, directing the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade to inspect the spot in the presence of both the parties and decide the same on merits. The petitioner pleads that after the issuance of aforesaid temporary injunction order dated 9.10.1998 by the Civil Judge against the present respondents, the latter forcibly dispossessed him whereupon the petitioner approached the Civil Court which directed the respondents to restore his possession vide judgment dated 21.7.2001 which was further upheld by Additional District Judge, Mansa vide order dated 12.8.2002. It was held by the Additional District Judge that the present respondents were not owners in possession of the land and that they wrongly dispossessed the petitioner. 3. The petitioner filed revision petition before the Financial Commissioner against the above remand order of the Commissioner but it was dismissed vide order dated 6.11.2002 which is now sought to be reviewed. The remand order of the Commissioner, therefore, took effect in compliance of which Assistant Collector Ist Grade corrected the current girdawari from Kharif 2002 in favour of the present respondent vide order dated 25.3.2003. The petitioners did not present themselves on the spot at the time of Assistant Collectors visit despite a notice given to this effect on the previous date vide interim order dated 20.3.2003. 4. The petitioners did not present themselves on the spot at the time of Assistant Collectors visit despite a notice given to this effect on the previous date vide interim order dated 20.3.2003. 4. The main question to be decided in this case is whether girdawari should be entered on the basis of physical possession contrary to findings and directions of civil Court. The other related question is whether mere physical possession should be seen or the legitimacy of the possession should also be seen. If a person is not able to explain legitimate way of his entry into possession of the land, whether such illegitimate or forcible possession should be recognized by the Revenue Officer through girdawaris which eventually enter into the record of rights and acquire presumption of truth. 5. In this connection I reproduce Section 36 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act :- "36. Determination of disputes. - (1) If during the making revisions of preparation of any record or in the course of any enquiry under this Chapter, a dispute arises as to any matter of which an entry is to be made in a record or in a register of mutations, a Revenue Officer may of his own motion, or on the application of any party interested but subject to the provisions of the next following section, and after such inquiry as he thinks fit, determine the entry to be made as to that matter. (2) If in any such dispute the Revenue Officer is unable to satisfy him as to which of the parties thereto is in possession of any property to which the dispute relates, he shall ascertain by summary inquiry who is the person best entitled to the property, and shall, by order, direct that that person be put in possession thereof and that entry in accordance with that order be made in the record or register." 6. The Commissioners remand order was passed on 14.2.2001 and after 5 months Civil Judge directed the respondents to restore the possession to the petitioner vide order dated 21.7.2001 which was further upheld by the Additional District Judge on 12.8.2002. As per law, the order of the Revenue Officer is subject to verdict of Civil Court. In this case Civil Court order directing the restoration of possession to the petitioner would, therefore, prevail rendering the remand order invalid. As per law, the order of the Revenue Officer is subject to verdict of Civil Court. In this case Civil Court order directing the restoration of possession to the petitioner would, therefore, prevail rendering the remand order invalid. That being so, the Financial Commissioners order dated 6.11.2002 which was passed due to lack of these effects cannot stand nor the Assistant Collectors order dated 25.3.2002 which was passed favouring the respondents possession in furtherance of the said remand order. It, certainly being in violation of the Civil Court order, cannot take effect. Review application is, therefore, accepted by accepting the revision petition and honouring the aforesaid Civil Courts verdict. The Assistant Collector is directed to put the petitioner in possession of the land if he is still not in possession. Announced. Petition allowed.