Judgment ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. 1. The prayer made in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the constitution of India, is to the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 28.5.1996 (Annexure P16) passed by the Financial commissioner (respondent No.1) whereby the order dated 21.9.1994 (Annexure P12) passed by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, holding the petitioners entitled to be considered having been vested with the proprietary rights over the land measuring 4 Bighas 11 Biswas situated in the revenue estate of Patiala, has been set aside by allowing the revision petition (R. O. R. No.281 of 1994-95) filed by the Municipal Committee, Patiala (respondent No.3) as well as the State of Punjab (respondent No.2 ). Facts in brief are that the petitioners are in possession of the land measuring 4 Bighas 11 Biswas comprised in Khewat/khatauni no.3002/4632/1 Khasra No.2106/478 situated in the revenue estate of Patiala (hereinafter referred to as the land in dispute ). Their father late Sardar harchand Singh has been entered as an occupancy tenant in the Jamabandi for the year 1949-50 (Annexure P1 ). He continued to be so entered in all the subsequent Jamabandies uptill-now. On 29.8.1953 Patiala and East Punjab states Union Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1953 (for short the Act) was enacted whereby all the rights, title and interest of the landlords were extinguished and the same were vested in the occupancy tenants free from all encumbrances. Thus, all the persons recorded as occupancy Tenants, immediately before the commencement of the Act were vested with the proprietary rights with effect from the appointed date, i. e. , 29.8.1953. In the year 1981 late S. Harchand Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners, moved an application before the Assistant collector Ist Grade, Patiala, for sanctioning of the mutation in his name on the basis of his having been recorded as Occupancy Tenant over the land in dispute, in view of the provisions of Sec.3 of the Act. The application was contested by the Municipal Committee, Patiala (respondent No.3 ). After hearing the counsel for the parties, the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Patiala, rejected the application filed by late S. Harchand Singh, vide order dated 15.10.1984. A copy of the order is annexed with the written statement filed by respondent No.3 as Annexure R3/1. The application was contested by the Municipal Committee, Patiala (respondent No.3 ). After hearing the counsel for the parties, the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Patiala, rejected the application filed by late S. Harchand Singh, vide order dated 15.10.1984. A copy of the order is annexed with the written statement filed by respondent No.3 as Annexure R3/1. The appeal filed against this order was also dismissed by the Collector, Patiala vide order dated 12.1.1988 (Annexure R-3/2 ). In the meantime Sardar Harchand Singh died. The present petitioners, who are his sons, filed an application under Sec.4 of the Act asking the Collector to determine the compensation payable to the government for the land in question, claiming themselves to have become owners of the land in dispute by virtue of their being Occupancy Tenants thereon before the commencement of the Act. The State of Punjab was impleaded as a respondent therein. However, the Municipal Committee, patiala, was allowed to become a respondent by the Collector later on. Anyhow, after hearing the counsel for the parties, the Collector dismissed the application filed by the petitioners under Sec.4 of the Act vide order dated 15.7.1994 (Annexure P10 ). However, the appeal filed by the petitioners was accepted by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, vide order dated 21.9.1994 (Annexure P12) who held that the petitioners had become owners of the land in dispute by virtue of their being recorded as Occupancy tenants in the revenue record continuously since the year 1949-50. With regard to compensation, it was held that the question of compensation to be paid to the State Government shall be considered as and when it applies therefor. Aggrieved against the order passed by the Commissioner, the municipal Committee, Patiala, filed a revision petition before the Financial commissioner (respondent No.1), who vide order dated 28.5.1996 (Annexure P16) allowed the same and set aside the order passed by the commissioner, holding that the entry in the Jamabandi for the year 1949-50 was manipulated by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners in connivance with the Revenue Officers at the lower level. It is this order passed by the Financial Commissioner, which is under challenge in the present writ petition filed by the sons of late S. Harchand Singh. Notice of motion was issued to the respondents, who filed separate written statements to contest the petition. It is this order passed by the Financial Commissioner, which is under challenge in the present writ petition filed by the sons of late S. Harchand Singh. Notice of motion was issued to the respondents, who filed separate written statements to contest the petition. The petitioners also filed two separate replications to contest the averments made in the written statements filed on behalf of the respondents. Shri S. C. Kapoor, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the status of the petitioners has to be determined under the provisions of Sec.2 (h) of the Act whereunder their claim as occupancy Tenants cannot be disallowed in view of consistent entries made in the revenue record. His submission is that a bare reading of the statutory provision would show that if a person is entered in the jamabandi prior to the commencement of the Act as a Occupancy Tenant, he shall be deemed to be an occupancy tenant. Mr. Kapoor contended that even the State had admitted this fact in para 6 of the written statement filed before the Collector. Thus, as the petitioners had been recorded as Occupancy tenants in the Jamabandies as well as the Khasra girdawaries since the year 1949-50, they had qualified to be declared as owners of the land in dispute. 2. The counsel has also drawn my attention to Annexure P7, which is an extract from the register of properties maintained by respondent No.3, i. e. , the municipal Committee, Patiala, wherein the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners has been recorded as Occupancy Tenant. Mr. Kapoor has assailed the findings of the Financial Commissioner to the effect that the basis of the entries in the revenue record had not been shown by the petitioner, by contending that it was for the party alleging that the entries are not correct to prove the allegation and onus therefor cannot be placed on the petitioners. In support of his contention, Mr. Kapoor has placed reliance on Balwant Singh and another V/s. Daulat Singh (dead) by L. Rs. and others , 1997 (2) PLJ 132. Mr. Kapoor has also assailed the findings of the Financial commissioner to the effect that the provisions of the Act were not applicable to the government land. In support of his contention, Mr. Kapoor has placed reliance on Balwant Singh and another V/s. Daulat Singh (dead) by L. Rs. and others , 1997 (2) PLJ 132. Mr. Kapoor has also assailed the findings of the Financial commissioner to the effect that the provisions of the Act were not applicable to the government land. He contends that no exception has been made in the act so far as the property situated in the erstwhile State of Patiala is concerned though some exceptions in this regard have been made in the erstwhile State of Faridkot, which provisions could not be applied to the case of the petitioners, as the property in the present case is situated in Patiala. The next argument raised by Mr. Kapoor is that the Financial commissioner has acted without jurisdiction in holding that he had power to correct the entries in the revenue records. His contention is that only the civil Court is competent to make any correction in the revenue record in view of the provisions of Sec.45 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 . 3. The finding of the Financial Commissioner in the impugned order to the effect that since the petitioners application for sanction of the mutation had been rejected, therefore, they were debarred from filing the application under Sec.4 of the Act, has also been assailed by Mr. Kapoor by contending that the application for sanction of mutation was filed under the Punjab Land Revenue Act and the order passed under that Act could not act as res judicata to the application filed under provisions of PEPSU occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1953. 4. The only submission made by Shri C. M. Munjal, learned additional Advocate General, Punjab, is that name of late Shri Harchand singh as an occupancy tenant appeared for the first time in the Jamabandi for the year 1949-50. The petitioners have failed to prove as to how and on what basis the entry in the revenue record for the first time was made in the year 1949-50. Earlier to that, it has been contended by him, land belonged to lukman Singh and Hem Singh, sons of Gamdur Singh in equal shares and the same was acquired by the State vide notification No.194/2000-01 BK. Earlier to that, it has been contended by him, land belonged to lukman Singh and Hem Singh, sons of Gamdur Singh in equal shares and the same was acquired by the State vide notification No.194/2000-01 BK. , and compensation to the tune of Rs.2139 and 9 Annas was paid to the recorded owners of the property by the State and mutation No.2992 dated 29.10.2004 BK was duly sanctioned in favour of the State. The Additional advocate General contends that it appears that late Shri Harchand Singh in connivance with the officers/officials of the revenue department manipulated the Jamabandi entry in his favour for for the first time in the year 1949-50 and, accordingly, the entries in the subsequent Jamanbandies continued to be repeated till date. 5. In order to controvert the contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioners, Mr. R. S. Mittal, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Municipal Committee, Patiala (respondent No.3), has contended that though the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners late S. Harchand Singh has been recorded as the occupancy tenant in the Jamabandi for the year 1949-50, yet the possession of the land in dispute has been depicted to be with the Horticulture Department. Thus, it has been contended by mr. R. S. Mittal that since the petitioners were not recorded to be in actual physical possession, they could not claim the benefit of the statutory provisions of Sec.3 of the Act. Mr. Mittal further argued that as per section 5 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 , the petitioners have failed to prove the necessary ingredients to claim occupancy rights. He contends that as per the provisions of Sec.5 of the said Act only a tenant "who, at the commencement of this Act has for more than two generations in the male line of descent through the grandfather or a granduncle and for a period of not less than twenty years been occupying land. . . . " has a right of occupancy in the land occupied by him. On this basis the contention of the learned senior Counsel is that since the petitioners had failed to fulfil the condition of two generations and twenty years in their occupation of the land in dispute immediately before the commencement of the Act, they are not eligible to claim themselves as "occupancy tenants". 6. In reply to this argument of Mr. On this basis the contention of the learned senior Counsel is that since the petitioners had failed to fulfil the condition of two generations and twenty years in their occupation of the land in dispute immediately before the commencement of the Act, they are not eligible to claim themselves as "occupancy tenants". 6. In reply to this argument of Mr. R. S. Mittal, it has been contended by Mr. S. C. Kapoor that the definition of "occupancy tenant" as given in the Act nowhere requires that an occupancy tenant must be in actual physical possession. He has submitted that though as per entry in the jamabandi for the year 1949-50 the actual physical possession may be with the Horticulture Department, yet the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, namely, late S. Harchand Singh, can be said to be in legal possession of the land in dispute. In reply to the argument based on Sec.5 of the Punjab Tenancy Act it has been contended by Mr. Kapoor that provisions of the said Act would not be attracted and the present case has to be decided on the basis of the definition of occupancy tenant as given in section 2 (h) of the Act. Moreover, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Municipal Committee, Patiala, has no locus standi to contest the present petition. In the revenue record throughout the Municipal Committee has nowhere been recorded either as the owner or in possession of the land in dispute. The counsel contends that even in the register of immovable properties maintained by the Municipal Committee, late Shri Harchand Singh, father of the petitioners, has been shown to be in possession of the suit property as an occupancy tenant and the Government has been depicted as the owner thereof. The counsel has brought the pointed attention of this Court to Annexure P7, which is a copy of the relevant entry from the register of immovable properties maintained by the Municipal committee. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on examining the case file very carefully, I find force in the contentions raised by Mr. S. C. Kapoor, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. 8. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on examining the case file very carefully, I find force in the contentions raised by Mr. S. C. Kapoor, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. 8. The main point for consideration is whether the petitioners have rightly claimed the proprietary rights over the property in dispute on the basis of their being recorded as occupancy tenants thereon since the year 1949-50. Admittedly, S. Harchand Singh, father of the petitioners, has been shown to be in possession of the land in dispute as an occupancy tenant in the Jamabandi for the year 1949-50. He continued to be repeated as such in the Jamabandies and the Khasra Girdawaries from 1949-50 uptill the years 1995-96. The copies of the Jamabandies and the Khasra Girdawaries have been annexed with this petition as Annexures P1 to P6. Even respondent no.3, i. e. , the Municipal Committee has depicted the father of the petitioners being in possession of the land in dispute as occupancy tenant in the register of immovable properties maintained by it. A copy of the relevant extract from the records of respondent No.3 has been attached herewith as Annexure p7. Whether the late father of the petitioners maneuvered to get his name entered in the Jamabandi for the year 1949-50 for the first in league with the revenue officials/officers is not the question relevant for decision in the present case. It was for the State authorities to take necessary steps to get corrected the relevant Jamabandies at the appropriate time. At the moment it is an admitted fact that late S. Harchand Singh has been recorded as an occupancy tenant over the land in dispute since the year 1949-50. No documentary evidence to be contrary has been adduced on record by the respondents. The petitioners have laid their claim for proprietary rights qua the land in dispute on the basis of the provisions of Sec.3 of the Act as well as the definition of occupancy tenant as given in Sec.2 (h) thereof. 9. No documentary evidence to be contrary has been adduced on record by the respondents. The petitioners have laid their claim for proprietary rights qua the land in dispute on the basis of the provisions of Sec.3 of the Act as well as the definition of occupancy tenant as given in Sec.2 (h) thereof. 9. The definition of occupancy tenant as given in clause (h) of Sec.2 of the act is reproduced hereunder:- " (h) occupancy tenant in respect of any land means a person who, at the commencement of the Presidents Act is or is deemed to be an occupancy tenant in respect of the land and includes a person who, after such commencement, obtains a right of occupancy in respect of the land, whether by any agreement with the landlord or any decree or order of any court or other authority of competent jurisdiction and includes also the predecessors and successors in interest of an occupancy tenant. Provided that no person who has abandoned his tenancy shall be deemed to be an occupancy tenant within the meaning of this clause. Explanation I.--- For the purpose of this clause, a person is or is deemed to be an occupancy tenant at the commence of the presidents Act: (i)if he is recorded, immediately before the commencement of the Presidents Act, as an occupancy tenant in the latest annual records; or the term "the Presidents Act" has been defined in clause (k) of section 2 of the Act, which is reproduced hereunder:- " (k) the Presidents Act means the Patiala and East punjab States Union Occupancy tenants (Vesting of proprietary Rights) Act, 1953 (Presidents Act No.3 of 1953);" Sec.3 of the Act, which deals with extinguishment of rights of landlords and vesting the same in the occupancy tenants, is also reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- "3. Extinguishment of rights of landlords and vesting the same in occupancy tenants :-Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law, custom or usage for the time being in force, on and from the appointed day, --- (a) all rights, title and interest (including the contingent interest, if any, recognised by any law, custom or usage for the time being in force) of a landlord in the land held under him by an occupancy tenant shall be extinguished; and such rights, title and interest shall vest in the occupancy tenant from from all encumbrances, if any, created in the land by the landlord. (b) the landlord shall cease to have any right to collect or receive any rent in respect of such land (including arrears of rent, if any, whether under a decree or not, for any period prior to the appointed day) and his liability to pay land revenue in respect of the land shall also cease; the occupancy tenant shall be liable to pay direct to the government the land revenue payable in respect of the land; (d)the landlord shall be entitled to receive and be paid such compensation as may be determined or deemed to have been determined, under this Act. " 10. A perusal of Sec.3 of the Act, as reproduced above, makes it abundantly clear that all the rights, title and interests of the landlords have been extinguished in favour of the occupancy tenants. As per definition of occupancy tenant, as given in clause (h) of section 2 of the Act, an "occupancy tenant" in respect of any land is one who "at the commencement of the Presidents Act is or is deemed to be an occupancy tenant. " Explanation-I underneath this clause gives more clarity to the definition of "occupancy tenant". According to this explanation, a person is or is deemed to be an occupancy tenant if he is recorded in the latest annual revenue record as such. The definition of Presidents Act No.3 has been given in clause (k) of section 2,which means the Patiala and East Punjab States Union occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) (PEPSU) Act, 1953. 11. According to this explanation, a person is or is deemed to be an occupancy tenant if he is recorded in the latest annual revenue record as such. The definition of Presidents Act No.3 has been given in clause (k) of section 2,which means the Patiala and East Punjab States Union occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) (PEPSU) Act, 1953. 11. As per the entry made in the Jamabandi for the year 1949-50, s. Harchand Singh (father of the petitioners) is in possession of the land in dispute as an occupancy tenant and he has throughout been repeated to be as such in all the Jamabandies recorded thereafter till date. Thus, as per the provisions of Sec.3 of the Act, late S. Harchand Singh was entitled to be vested with the proprietary rights of the land in dispute, as he and the petitioners after him stand proved to be the occupancy tenant over the land in dispute. The plea raised by Mr. R. S. Mittal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3, that late S. Harchand Singh is not covered under the provisions of Sec.5 (1) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (for short the 1887 Act) is without any merit. The relevant clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 5 thereof is reproduced hereunder:- "5. (1) A tenant - (a) who, at the commencement of this Act has for more than two generations in the male line of descent through a grandfather or granduncle and for a period of not less than twenty years been occupying land paying no rent therefor beyond the amount of land revenue thereof and the rates and cesses for the time being chargeable thereon; or" 12. It is to be kept in mind that the claim of the petitioners for the grant of proprietary rights qua the land in dispute is on the basis of the provisions of section 3 of the Act and not under the provisions of 1887 Act. Thus, the contention raised by Mr. R. S. Mittal is outrightly rejected. 13. The argument raised by the learned Additional Advocate general, Punjab, that the entries made in the revenue record with regard to the tenancy of late S. Harchand Singh are not correct, is also without any force. The State has nowhere adduced any evidence to place any doubt with regard to the relevant revenue entries. 13. The argument raised by the learned Additional Advocate general, Punjab, that the entries made in the revenue record with regard to the tenancy of late S. Harchand Singh are not correct, is also without any force. The State has nowhere adduced any evidence to place any doubt with regard to the relevant revenue entries. It is well settled that the onus is always on the person to prove who pleads that the entries are not correct and not on the person in whose favour the entries in the revenue record have been made. It is made clear that the presumption of truth is always attached to the jamabandi entries, unless the same are got corrected from the Civil Court in accordance with the provisions of Sec.45of the 1887 Act. The respondents have never challenged the Jamabandi entries made in favour of late S. Harchand Singh before any Court of competent jurisdiction. In this view of the matter, the contention raised by Mr. C. M. Munjal, learned additional Advocate General, Punjab, that the revenue entries in favour of late S. Harchand Singh are wrong, is rejected. 14. In the light of the above discussion, I allow the writ petition and set aside the order dated 28.5.1996 (Annexure P16) passed by the Financial commissioner (Revenue), Punjab, and restore the order dated 21.9.1994 (Annexure P12) passed by the Commissioner, Patiala Division. It is held that the petitioners through their father late S. Harchand Singh are deemed to be occupancy tenants according to the provisions of the Pepsu Occupancy tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act and they are entitled to the proprietary rights over the land measuring 4 Bighas 11 Biswas comprised in khasra No.2106/478 in the revenue estate of Patiala under Sec.3 of the act. The question of grant of compensation to the State of the Punjab may be considered in accordance the relevant rules on the point.