ORDER 1. These are 10 connected revision petitions. The facts and legal points involved in all these 10 petitions are similar and therefore, all the 10 petitions are being decided by one common order. However, for brevity, the facts are being taken from the first revision petition R.O.R. No. 446 of 2009-10. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Prem, Jai Pal and Rishal Singh sons of Ran Singh, respondents No. 1 to 3, moved an application before the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Madlauda for correction of Khasra Girdawari entries of the land measuring 3 Kanals and 16 Marla comprised in Khewat No. 383, Khatauni No. 479, Khasra No. 20, Killa Nos. 16/3 (2-12) and 17/1 (1-4) situated in Village Mahiudinpur Thirana, Sub-Tehsil Madlauda, District Panipat as per Jamabandi for the year 1996-97 in respect of crop Kharif 1997 till date. It was submitted in the application that the aforesaid land was the ownership of Jumla Mustarka Malkan which stands partitioned and the applicants were in actual and physical cultivating possession thereof at present. It was further submitted that the respondents had never cultivated the aforesaid land and their name has wrongly been incorporated in Khasra Girdawari by the Patwari Halqa which was wrong and prayed for correction of Khasra Girdawari entries of the aforesaid land from Kharif 1887 till date in favour of the applicants. 3. After some intervening litigation, as depicted in the order dated 04.09.2007 passed by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Madlauda, ultimately, the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, finally remanded the case to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Madlauda for fresh decision after impleading the Gram Panchayat and directed the parties to appeal before him on 18.04.2006. 4. Consequent upon appearance of the parties, the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Madlauda, completed the pleadings of the parties and the site was inspected by him on 31.08.2007 in the presence of the parties, neighbors of the field, some other persons and the Patwari Halqa who was present at the spot alongwith the record. However, Smt. Shanti Devi did not appear and none came present on her behalf. However, Smt. Shanti Devi did not appear and none came present on her behalf. It was found as a fact by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Madlauda that respondents Prem, Jai Pal and Rishal Singh sons of Ran Singh, were in cultivating possession of the aforesaid land since the last many years and they had sown the crop Kharif, 2007 at the spot and ordered correction of entries of Khasra Girdawari in their names from Kharif 2007 till date vide his order dated 04.09.2007. 5. Feeling dissatisfied, Smt. Shanti Devi petitioner filed an appeal against order dated 04.09.2007 passed by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Madlauda before the Collector, Panipat who also found Prem, Jai Pal and Rishal Singh sons of Ran Singh in cultivating possession of the aforesaid land and dismissed the appeal vide order dated 31.03.2008. Still not satisfied, Smt. Shanti Devi petitioner filed a revision petition against order dated 04.09.2007 passed by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Madlauda and the order dated 31.03.2008 passed by the Collector, Panipat before the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, who also, after hearing the parties at length and after going through the records of the case, dismissed the same vide order dated 11.12.2009. In the instant petition, Smt. Shanti Devi petitioner has challenged all these three aforesaid concurrent orders passed by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Madlauda, the Collector, Panipat and the Commissioner, Rohtak Division respectively. 6. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for all the parties at length and have also gone through the records of the case very carefully with their help. Commencing his arguments, the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in fact, respondents No. 1 to 3 had never remained in possession of the land in dispute and it is the petitioner, who is in actual cultivating possession of the land in dispute as Gair Maurusi and has never been evicted from the land in dispute and the orders passed by the Ld. Officers below are wrong and illegal and are liable to be set aside as such. 7. That the Ld. Counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3 has argued that there is no infirmity or illegality in the concurrent orders passed by the Ld. Officers below and the same require no interference at the hands of this Court. Officers below are wrong and illegal and are liable to be set aside as such. 7. That the Ld. Counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3 has argued that there is no infirmity or illegality in the concurrent orders passed by the Ld. Officers below and the same require no interference at the hands of this Court. Respondents No. 1 to 3 are in cultivating possession of the land in dispute till date and their physical possession over the land in dispute was also found by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Madlauda on his site-inspection visit conducted on 31.08.2007. Thereafter, the Collector, Panipat and the Commissioner, Rohtak Division have also dismissed the appeal and revision petition respectively filed by the petitioner finding them in actual physical possession of the land in dispute and they have rightly upheld the order dated 04.09.2007 passed by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Madlauda. 8. It has further been submitted by the Ld. Counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3 that Smt. Shanti Devi petitioner also filed a Civil Suit of 165 of 1987 in the Civil Court at Panipat for permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein including respondents No. 1 to 3 herein from interfering in her peaceful possession as owner over the land in dispute. The Ld. Addl. Senior Sub Judge, Panipat decided and partly allowed her prayer and finding her in possession, the defendants were restrained from interfering in her possession but her suit with regard to ownership was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 23.11.1992. Two separate appeals were filed, before the Ld. Addl. District Judge, Panipat, one by defendants against the finding on possession and the other by Smt. Shanti Devi petitioner for declaration of ownership. Both these appeals were decided by the Ld. Addl. District Judge, Panipat vide one common judgment and decree dated 30.09.1996. The appeal of Smt. Shanti Devi petitioner was dismissed whereas, the appeal filed by respondents No. 1 to 3 alongwith others was accepted by him and it was held that Smt. Shanti Devi petitioner was not in possession of the land in dispute and respondents No. 1 to 3 alongwith others were in possession of the land in dispute. Regular Second Appeal being R.S.A. No. 2926 of 1996 filed by Smt. Shanti Devi petitioner against the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 30.09.1996 passed by the Ld. Addl. Regular Second Appeal being R.S.A. No. 2926 of 1996 filed by Smt. Shanti Devi petitioner against the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 30.09.1996 passed by the Ld. Addl. District Judge, Panipat had been dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court vide judgment dated 14.03.1997 and Review Application filed by her has also dismissed on 07.10.1997 by the Hon’ble High Court. Even the Special Leave Petition filed by her has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 18.12.1997 and the findings qua possession of the land in dispute has become final and therefore, Smt. Shanti Devi petitioner is precluded from contending that she is in possession of the land in dispute. It has been argued by the Ld. Counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3 that the finding of Civil Court on possession is binding upon the revenue courts. It has still further been brought to my notice by the Ld. Counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3 that another Civil Suit No. 261 of 2001 filed by Smt. Shanti Devi petitioner ai Panipat for permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein including respondents No. 1 to 3 herein from interfering in her peaceful possession as owner over the land in dispute, stands dismissed by the Ld. Add. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Panipat vide judgment and decree dated 28.09.2001. 9. After hearing the parties at length and after careful perusal of the record of the case, I am of the considered view that this petition deserves to be dismissed. The present litigation is about correction of Khasra Girdawari entries. It is well settled that the Khasra Girdawari should be entered in the name of the person actually in cultivating possession of the land at the spot. The Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Madlauda, himself inspected the site on 31.08.2007 in the presence of the parties, neighbors of the field, some other persons and the Patwari Halqa who was present at the spot alongwith the record. However, Smt. Shanti Devi did not appear and none came present on her behalf. The Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Madlauda, himself inspected the site on 31.08.2007 in the presence of the parties, neighbors of the field, some other persons and the Patwari Halqa who was present at the spot alongwith the record. However, Smt. Shanti Devi did not appear and none came present on her behalf. It was found as a fact by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Madlauda that respondents Prem, Jai Pal and Rishal Singh sons of Ran Singh, were in cultivating possession of the aforesaid land since the last many years and they had sown the crop Kharif, 2007 at the spot and ordered correction of entries of Khasra Girdawari in their names from Kharif 2007 till date vide his order dated 04.09.2007. The Collector, Panipat also found Prem, Jai Pal and Rishal Singh sons of Ran Singh in cultivating possession of the aforesaid land and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner vide order dated 31.03.2008 and the revision petition filed by the petitioner against orders dated 04.09.2007 and 31.03.2008 before the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, also met with the same fate and was dismissed vide order dated 11.12.2009. All the three Officers below have concurrently found respondents No. 1 to 3 in actual cultivating possession of the land in dispute at the spot and there is no scope of interference in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by all the three Officers below. 10. Apart from this, Smt. Shanti Devi petitioner also filed a Civil Suit No. 165 of 1987 in the Civil Court at Panipat for permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein including respondents No. 1 to 3 herein from interfering in her peaceful possession as owner over the land in dispute. The Ld. Addl. Senior Sub Judge, Panipat decided and partly allowed her prayer and finding her in possession, the defendants were restrained from interfering in her possession but her suit with regard to ownership was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 23.11.1992. Two separate appeals were filed before the Ld. Addl. District Judge, Panipat, one by defendants against the finding on possession and the other by Smt. Shanti Devi petitioner for declaration of ownership. Both these appeals were decided by the Ld. Addl. District Judge, Panipat vide judgment and decree dated 30.09.1996. Two separate appeals were filed before the Ld. Addl. District Judge, Panipat, one by defendants against the finding on possession and the other by Smt. Shanti Devi petitioner for declaration of ownership. Both these appeals were decided by the Ld. Addl. District Judge, Panipat vide judgment and decree dated 30.09.1996. The appeal of Smt. Shanti Devi petitioner was dismissed whereas, the appeal filed by respondents No. 1 to 3 alongwith others was accepted by him and it was held that Smt. Shanti Devi petitioner was neither owner nor in possession of the land in dispute and respondents No. 1 to 3 alongwith others were in possession of the land in dispute. Regular Second Appeal being R.S.A. No. 2926 of 1996 filed by Smt. Shanti Devi petitioner against the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 30.09.1996 passed by the Ld. Addl. District Judge, Panipat had been dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court vide judgment dated 14.03.1997 and Review Application filed by her has also dismissed on 07.10.1997 by the Hon’ble High Court. Even the Special Leave Petition filed by her has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 18.12.1997 and the findings qua possession of the land in dispute has become final as against her. It has still further been brought to my notice by the Ld. Counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3 that another Civil Suit No. 261 of 2001 filed by Smt. Shanti Devi petitioner at Panipat for permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein including respondents No. 1 to 3 herein from interfering in her peaceful possession as owner over the land in dispute, has been dismissed by the Ld. Add. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Panipat vide judgment and decree dated 28.09.2001 and in this view of the matter, it could safely be held that the petitioner is not in possession of the land in dispute. Otherwise also, as submitted by the Ld. Counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3 that the finding of Civil Court regarding possession is binding upon the revenue courts and therefore, I have no hesitation in dismissing the present revision petition being devoid of any merits and the same is hereby dismissed alongwith 9 other connected revision petitions. 11. Otherwise also, as submitted by the Ld. Counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3 that the finding of Civil Court regarding possession is binding upon the revenue courts and therefore, I have no hesitation in dismissing the present revision petition being devoid of any merits and the same is hereby dismissed alongwith 9 other connected revision petitions. 11. As already stated hereinbefore, that these are 10 connected revision petitions and as the facts and legal points involved in all these 10 petitions are similar and therefore, all the 10 petitions are being decided by one common order and therefore, it is ordered that a copy of this order be placed on record of each of the 10 petitions. Announced. ————————