Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1502 (PNJ)

Jasvir Inder Singh v. Jasjit Inder Singh

2009-08-25

ROMILA DUBEY

body2009
ORDER Romila Dubey, J. - This revision petition is under section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act against the order dated 25.3.2003 of Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur whereby application of Jasjit Inder Singh to review the order dated 14.6.2001 of Commissioner was dismissed. 2. Briefly the facts of this case are that Jasjit Inder Singh through his application dated 30.7.1992 requested for correction of Khasra Girdawari of the land situated in village Waring Khera for the crops Rabi 1991 to date. The A.C.II Lambi, vide his order dated 4.11.1992 rejected the application stating that no particular Khasra numbers are mentioned in the application for the correction of Khasra Girdawari. He directed both the parties to be present and produce evidence/witnesses at the time of spot inspection in the afternoon of 4.11.1992. The A.C.II during inspection on 14.11.1992 ordered the correction of Khasra Girdawari in favour of Jasjit Inder Singh etc. which was challenged by Jasvir Inder Singh etc. by filing an appeal before the S.D.M-cum-Collector Malout. The main contention of the appellant was that the Khasra Girdawari has been corrected without hearing them. The Collector vide his order dated 26.11.1993 accepted the appeal and set aside the order dated 14.11.1992 observing that order dated 14.11.1992 is a different order and has no relevancy with the order dated 4.11.1992 because the application for correction of Khasra Girdawari was filed on 4.11.1992 by A.C.II. Appeal filed by Jasjit Inder Singh against the order dated 26.11.1993 of Collector Malout was dismissed by the Commissioner on 11.6.1996. Review filed in this case was dismissed on 7.1.1997 by the Commissioner. Still aggrieved jasjit Inder Singh and other filed ROR 340 of 1996-97 before the Financial Commissioner Appeals-II, who vide his order dated 1.3.1999 observed that there was admittedly a mistake of fact in the Khasra Girdawari 1992 which carries entries in favour of the petitioner (Jasjit Inder Singh), which was subsequently set aside vide Collectors order dated 26.11.1993 but this order of Collector was not given effect while preparing jamabandi for the year 1994-95. The Financial Commissioner Appeals-II accordingly remanded the case to Commissioner to go through the facts of the case and to see whether the entries should be corrected by way Farad Badar or by adopting some other procedure as required by law and decide the matter accordingly. The Financial Commissioner Appeals-II accordingly remanded the case to Commissioner to go through the facts of the case and to see whether the entries should be corrected by way Farad Badar or by adopting some other procedure as required by law and decide the matter accordingly. After remand Commissioner heard both the parties and decided the case vide his order dated 14.6.2001 observing that order dated 14.11.1992 was not challenged before the Collector Malout; appeal filed before the Collector Malout was against the order dated 4.11.1992 and not 14.11.1992 and infact there was no order dated 14.11.1992 and therefore Collector Malout was not justified in setting aside the order dated 14.11.1992 which was never challenged before him. The Commissioner therefore vide order dated 14.6.2001 accepted the appeal and set aside the order dated 26.11.1993 of Collector. Review filed by the Jasvir Inder Singh against this order was dismissed by the Commissioner on 25.3.2003. Still aggrieved Jasvir Inder Singh filed revision petition ROR No. 517 of 2003 which was dismissed by Sh. R.P.S. Pawar the then Financial Commissioner Appeals-II, Punjab on 26.7.2004 on the ground that no appeal lies against an order refusing to review confirming on review a previous order. Against this order Jasvir Inder Singh filed C.W.P No. 19312 of 2004 wherein Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court vide order dated 9.12.2008 remanded the case back to Financial Commissioner Appeals-II for re-adjudication on merit holding that a revision was competent under the mandate of section 16 of the Punjab land Revenue Act and the same ought to have been adjudicated upon, on merits. The Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court therefore directed for re- adjudication of the case on merit so far as the challenge raised by the petitioner to the impugned order is concerned. The case was fixed for arguments on 7.7.2009 along with Misc. 16 of 2009 in ROR 518 of 2003 when Sh. Harmindar Singh, counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Ashok Verma, counsel for the respondent desired to decide the case on the basis of their written arguments. 3. I have carefully gone through the written arguments filed by Sh. Harmindar Singh counsel for the petitioner. Counsel for the respondent has filed written arguments in Misc. No. 16 of 2009 in ROR 518 of 2003 but no arguments have been filed in present case. 3. I have carefully gone through the written arguments filed by Sh. Harmindar Singh counsel for the petitioner. Counsel for the respondent has filed written arguments in Misc. No. 16 of 2009 in ROR 518 of 2003 but no arguments have been filed in present case. The main contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the case was remanded on 1.3.1999 to the Commissioner by the then Financial Commissioner Appeals-II with the direction as to whether the entries should be corrected by way of Farad Badar but the Commissioner has not complied with the direction given by the then Financial Commissioner Appeals-II and the Commissioner has passed, all together, a new order exceeding his jurisdiction by passing order dated 14.6.2001. Even review filed by the present petitioner against this order was also dismissed on 25.3.2003. I have given thoughtful consideration to the written arguments filed by the counsel for the petitioner, revision petition as well as orders and record of the lower courts. I find that the orders dated 14.6.2001 and 25.3.2003 of Commissioner Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur are well reasoned I have seen the record of Collector also. Jasvir Inder Singh and Smt. Jagdeep Mohinder Kaur filed appeal No. 26 before the Collector Malout (wrongly mentioned as A.C.I. Malout) on 26.11.1992 against the order dated 4.11.1992 of Naib Tehsildar Lambi and made prayer to accept the appeal and set aside the order dated 4.11.1992. No order dated 14.11.1992 was challenged before the Collector. Therefore, Collector was not justified in setting aside the order dated 14.11.1992 which was not challenged before him. I find no infirmity or illegality in the order dated 14.6.2001 whereby appeal filed by Jasjit Inder Singh etc. against the order dated 26.11.1993 of Collector Malout was accepted and the order dated 26.11.1993 of Collector Malout was set aside. Review filed against this order has also rightly been rejected by the Commissioner on 25.3.2003. Apparently these orders have been passed complying with the directions given by the then Financial Commissioner Appeals-II in order dated 1.3.1999. I see no illegality or infirmity in the orders of Commissioner and find no force in the present revision petition which is accordingly dismissed. Announced. Petition dismissed.