Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1000 (PNJ)

Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab

2012-07-30

RANJIT SINGH

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Ranjit Singh, J.: - The petitioners have filed an application seeking correction in Khasra Girdawari for land measuring 2 kanals 11 marlas bearing Khasra No.226/2/2 on 28.4.2006. Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Amritsar, summoned respondent Nos.2 to 4. They came present but did not file any reply. The other two respondents were proceeded against exparte. The Assistant Collector then visited the spot and verified the possession. Statements of Sarpanch and Lambardar of the Village were also recorded. The petitioners were found to have sown the crop on the land and had also planted 200 eucalyptus trees. The Assistant Collector IInd Grade accordingly ordered correction of khasra girdawari on 31.10.2006 in the names of the petitioners from Kharif 2006 onwards. 2. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 filed an appeal against this before the Collector, who set-aside the order of Assistant Collector IInd Grade. The Collector ordered that khasra girdawari would continue in the name of respondent No.2. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, who on 29.8.2008 set-aside the order passed by the Collector and up-held the order passed by Assistant Collector IInd Grade. Respondent Nos.2 to 5 then filed a petition before the Financial Commissioner, who allowed the same on 11.5.2010 and reversed the order passed by the Commissioner. 3. As per the petitioner, they had brought to the notice of the Assistant Collector that Civil Court filed by respondent Nos.2 to 4 has already been dismissed as they failed to prove their possession as well as ownership over the disputed land. This civil suit No.759, dated 28.11.2006 was filed by respondent Nos.2 to 5 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar. The suit was for declaration to the effect that they are owners in possession of the land measuring 2 kanals 11 marlas. The suit was dismissed as the respondents failed to lead any evidence to show their ownership and right to have possession of the land. This finding obviously has not been kept in view by the Financial Commissioner. 4. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents also points out that even the petitioners had filed a suit for declaration and injunction, which they withdrew. The Financial Commissioner accordingly was required to keep in view both the orders passed in the civil suits and to examine the effect thereof for directing correction of khasra girdawaries. 4. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents also points out that even the petitioners had filed a suit for declaration and injunction, which they withdrew. The Financial Commissioner accordingly was required to keep in view both the orders passed in the civil suits and to examine the effect thereof for directing correction of khasra girdawaries. Such entries are to be made on the basis of possession. 5. It would, therefore, be appropriate to remand the case to the Financial Commissioner, who shall reconsider the effect of both the suits filed by the respective parties. The Financial Commissioner then may pass any appropriate order. The impugned order, therefore, is set-aside. The parties, through their counsel are directed to appear before the Financial Commissioner on 21.8.2012. 6. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. ---------0.B.S.0------------