Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 3144 (PNJ)

Gurdial Singh v. State Of Punjab

2006-08-04

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, NIRMAL YADAV

body2006
Judgment 1. The challenge in the writ petition is to the order dated 18.2.2004 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Muktsar, vide which the change in the Khasra-Girdawari from the name of the petitioner to that of respondent No.4 has been ordered. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is in possession of land measuring 9 kanals 15 marlas comprised in Rectangle No.259 Khasra Nos.16/2, 17/2 and 24/1 situated in the revenue limits of village Mehna, Tehsil Malout District Muktsar and his possession has been entered in the Jamabandi for the year 1999-2000 (Annexure P-1) as well as in the Khasra-Girdawari for the years 1999-2000, 2000-2001 and 2003 (Annexure P-2 ). However, the Deputy Commissioner vide the impugned order has ordered the change of Khasra-Girdawari without issuance of any notice to the petitioner. 3. On notice of motion having been issued, respondent No.2 has filed a detailed written statement on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 wherein it has been pleaded that the change of name in the Khasra-Girdawari has been ordered vide the impugned order on the basis of judgments dated 6.10.1995 (Annexure R-1) passed by the Additional Senior Sub-Judge, Gidderbaha as also on the basis of judgment dated 14.10.1997 (Annexure R-2) passed by the Additional District Judge, Faridkot, as well as the judgment dated 9.12.2002 (Annexure R-3) passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Malout. It has also been averred in the written statement that the Punjab State Human Rights Commission after taking cognizance of the matter had ordered the correction of Khasra-Girdawari vide order dated 3.11.2003 (Annexure R-4 ). 4. It has been contended by Mr. Sarjit Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, that the Deputy Commissioner was not competent to direct the change of Khasra-Girdawari under the Punjab Land Revenue Act when the petitioner has been shown to be in possession of the land in dispute in the Khasra-Girdawaris as well as in the Jamabandi for the year 1999-2000. 5. The contention raised by Mr. Sarjit Singh has been vehemently controverted by the Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, who has put in appearance on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. 6. Undisputedly, respondent No.4 has been held to be in cultivating possession of the land in dispute by the civil Courts repeatedly vide judgments Annexures R-1 to R-3. 5. The contention raised by Mr. Sarjit Singh has been vehemently controverted by the Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, who has put in appearance on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. 6. Undisputedly, respondent No.4 has been held to be in cultivating possession of the land in dispute by the civil Courts repeatedly vide judgments Annexures R-1 to R-3. A permanent injunction restraining Darshan Singh (defendant in that suit) from interfering in the possession of respondent No.4 has been issued. It has been held by the civil Courts that the plaintiff (respondent No.4 herein) was entitled to the grant of injunction as prayed for. The said Darshan Singh did not file any appeal or revision against the orders passed by the trial Court which attained finality. Thereafter, the present petitioner filed a suit for grant of permanent injunction against respondent No.4 seeking to restrain him from interfering in his possession over the suit land. The suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed with costs by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Malout vide judgment Annexure R-3 holding that the petitioner has failed to prove his possession over the suit land whereas the defendant/respondent No.4 has succeeded in establishing his possession over the land in dispute. The said judgment passed by the civil Court has also attained finality as the petitioner never filed any appeal to challenge the same. 7. Thus, in view of the aforementioned facts as it has already been held by the civil Courts that respondent No.4 is in possession of the suit land, therefore, the Deputy Commissioner has rightly ordered the change in the entries in the Khasra-Girdawaris in compliance with the orders passed by the civil Courts and no irregularity or illegality has been committed by him. Thus, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.