Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1990 (PNJ)

Gurdeep Singh v. Baldev Singh

2008-11-27

P.RAM

body2008
ORDER P. Ram, F.C.:-This is a revision petition under section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, against the order dated 4-4-05 of Divisional Commissioner, Ferozepur passed in the matter of correction of khasra girdawari. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 to 3 filed an application before the Assistant Collector Grade-II, Guruharsahai for correction of khasra girdawari of the land measuring 32 kana Is situated in the area of village Guru Har Sahai Shamali from crop Hari 2003 to date. The Assistant Collector Grade­-II after completing the necessary formalities and spot inspection, vide order dated 19-5-03 corrected the khasra girdawari in the name of respondents No.1 to 3 as Nazaiz Kabaj of the crop Hari, 2003. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector, Jalalabad, who vide order dated 24-3-04 dismissed the same. Not satisfied with the orders, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Divisional Commissioner, Ferozepur, who vide order dated 4-4-05 dismissed the revision petition. Hence, this revision petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to indicate as to under what circumstances and under What terms and conditions he came to occupy the Central Govt. land controlled by the Railways. His plea, thai, khasra girdawari entries in his favour had been found menlion in the latest jamabandi, can not be acCepted The learned counsel for the railways on the other hand has produced civil litigation in which the petitioner himself had filed a civil suit titled as “Gurdip Singh Versus Union of India’ in the court of Shri Gurnam Singh, PCS, Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Ferozepur, vide civil suit No. 228-1 of 56199812001, which was decided against him on 5-6-02 and his appeal in the court of Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Ferozepur was also dismissed vide order dated 27-1-05. This, further, confirms my view that the petitioner had no locus-standi to occupy the Central Govt. land. Under these circumstances, I see no justification for giving any relief to the petitioner and dismiss the revision petition. Announced. ———————