Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 27 (PNJ)

Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab

2013-01-10

RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK

body2013
JUDGMENT : - RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J. (Oral) The instant petition is directed against the order dated 1.10.2012, passed by the learned Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, whereby revision petition of the petitioner filed against the order dated 24.8.2012 passed by the Collector, Gurdaspur, upholding the order dated 15.7.2011 passed by Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Dina Nagar, ordering correction of khasra girdawari in favour of respondent No.5, was dismissed, thereby upholding the orders passed by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Dina Nagar, as well as the appellate order passed by the learned Collector, Gurdaspur. The brief facts of the case, as noticed by learned Commissioner in his order dated 1.10.2012 Annexure P-5, are that respondent No.5 moved an application before Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Gurdaspur, for the correction of khasra girdawari. The case was transferred by District Collector, Gurdaspur, to Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Dina Nagar, on the request of the petitioner. After conducting spot inspection, Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Dina Nagar, decided the case in favour of respondent No.5, on 31.5.2010. This order was challenged by the petitioner before the Collector, Gurdaspur, who remanded the case back to Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Dina Nagar. He summoned all the necessary parties and also visited the spot on 13.7.2011, in the presence of respectables of the village. Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Dina Nagar, during the course of his inspection at the spot, found that respondent No.5 was in possession of the disputed land. Accordingly, he ordered to correct the entries of khasra girdawari from the crop Rabi 2010 in the name of respondent No.5, vide his order dated 15.7.2011. Dissatisfied, petitioner filed appeal, which was dismissed by the learned Collector, Gurdaspur, vide order dated 24.8.2012 observing that after the purchase of the land by respondent No.5 and also sanctioning of mutation in her name, petitioner could not clarify as to how he came into possession over the suit land. Thereafter, petitioner filed his revision petition under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, against the order dated 24.8.2012 passed by the learned Collector, Gurdaspur. The revision petition filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed, vide order dated 1.10.2012 (Annexure P-5) by the learned Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar. Feeling aggrieved against the above-said impugned orders passed by the respondent-authorities, petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition. The revision petition filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed, vide order dated 1.10.2012 (Annexure P-5) by the learned Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar. Feeling aggrieved against the above-said impugned orders passed by the respondent-authorities, petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities, while passing their respective orders, have proceeded on a misconceived approach, ordering the correction of khasra girdawari in favour of respondent No.5. He further submits that the petitioner was in cultivating possession over the disputed land and the impugned orders are illegal. He concluded by submitting that the impugned orders passed by the respondents were not sustainable in law and the writ petition deserves to be allowed. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, after careful perusal of the record and giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present writ petition is wholly misconceived and without any substance. Thus, it must fail. To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter. It is the settled proposition of law that in the cases of correction of khasra girdawari, the basic rule to be followed by the revenue officer, before he orders the correction of khasra girdawari, is that he should conduct the inspection at the site, so as to ascertain and satisfy himself as to which out of the contesting parties, was in actual cultivating possession over the suit land. In the present case, Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Dina Nagar, himself inspected the disputed land on 13.7.2011 in the presence of respectables of the village including Lamberdar and Chowkidar of the village. It has been so recorded by Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Dina Nagar, that the petitioner refused to sign the notice. He also recorded the statement of the respectables present, at the spot, who, in one voice, verified that respondent No.5 was in cultivating possession over the suit land. It was found that respondent No.5 had sown the chari-chara (green-fodder) in the disputed land. The petitioner was not found cultivating this land. Ownership of respondent No.5 was not in dispute. He also recorded the statement of the respectables present, at the spot, who, in one voice, verified that respondent No.5 was in cultivating possession over the suit land. It was found that respondent No.5 had sown the chari-chara (green-fodder) in the disputed land. The petitioner was not found cultivating this land. Ownership of respondent No.5 was not in dispute. It was also not in dispute that after respondent No.5 had purchased the suit land, vide sale-deed dated 10.11.2008, from her vendors namely Rattan Kaur, Harbhajan Kaur and Rajwant Kaur, daughters of Inder Singh, who were none else than the real sisters of the petitioner, mutation of this land was also duly sanctioned in favour of respondent No.5. It has also come on record in the order dated 24.8.2012 passed by the learned Collector that pursuant to the purchase of the land in question by respondent No.5, the actual possession of the land was handed over to her by her vendors and thereafter mutation came to be sanctioned in her favour. Once the ownership and possession of respondent No.5 was established, as a matter of fact, during physical inspection of the suit land by Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, he committed no error of law, while ordering the correction of khasra girdawari, in favour of respondent No.5. Further, petitioner has miserably failed to prove before the revenue authorities that after the purchase of land by respondent No.5, how he came into the cultivating possession over the suit land. Divisional Magistrate-Collector, Gurdaspur, while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner, made following observations:- “5. I have gone through the case filed, the material placed on the same and have also given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the counsel of the parties before the court. The counsel of the appellant has not denied the facts made mentioned in the arguments advanced by the counsel of the respondent that the land in question on being purchased by the respondent and delivering the possession of the said land to the respondent, mutation stand sanctioned accordingly in the name of the respondent. More-so the counsel of the appellant has made mentioned in his arguments that the appellant was not present at the time of spot visit made by the A.C. IInd Grade though he remained used to be present in the court in the proceedings before the A.C.IInd Grade. More-so the counsel of the appellant has made mentioned in his arguments that the appellant was not present at the time of spot visit made by the A.C. IInd Grade though he remained used to be present in the court in the proceedings before the A.C.IInd Grade. The counsel of appellant has also not been able to make it further clear that after the purchase of the land by the respondent and attestation of the mutation of the said land in the name of the respondent, how the appellant came into the cultivating possession of the said land. In view of the above, the appeal of the appellant fails and is hereby dismissed...” Again learned Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, passed a cogent and speaking order dated 1.10.2012 while dismissing the revision petition of the petitioner. It has been rightly held that the petitioner failed to make out any case for interference. The relevant operative part of the order dated 1.10.2012 passed by the learned Commissioner, reads as under:- “I have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel and have also perused the record. When the respondent filed an application for correction of khasra girdawari, the present petition filed an application before the District Collector, Gurdaspur for transfer of the case and on the application of the present petitioner, the case was transferred to the A.C. 2nd Grade, Dina Nagar. After the case was marked to him the petitioner did not turn up before the A.C. 2nd Grade and refused to accept the summon, about which he has mentioned in his order dated 15/7/2011. The respondent purchased the property on 10/11/2008 from the vendors, who are sisters of the petitioners, and recorded as co-sharer as 43/843 share in the land, but due to some clerical mistake by the deed writer, some khasra numbers were not mentioned in the first sale deed and Tamima Registry was made on 2/12/2008 vide sale deed no.3027 by mentioning all numbers, in which it is also mentioned that the possession has been delivered to the vendee. The mutation of this land has also been sanctioned in favour of the present respondent. The Collector in his order has clearly mentioned that the appellant could not clear that how he came into the possession of the suit land. The mutation of this land has also been sanctioned in favour of the present respondent. The Collector in his order has clearly mentioned that the appellant could not clear that how he came into the possession of the suit land. So, the orders of the lower revenue courts are perfect and there is no need to interfere in the orders of the lower revenue officers. The revision petition is without any merit and it is dismissed in limine.” A bare perusal of the above-said impugned orders, would show that the respondent-revenue authorities have not committed any error of fact or law in their decision making process. Principles of natural justice have been duly complied with. Petitioner has been granted due opportunity to present his case at every stage of the litigation. This is not even the case of the petitioner that he was not granted due opportunity. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any patent illegality or perversity, in any of the impugned orders, which is sine qua non to interfere in the impugned orders, at the hands of this Court while exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also not the case of the petitioner that spot was not inspected on 13.7.2011 by Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Dina Nagar, in the presence of respectables of the village, including the village Namberdar and Chowkidar. Physical inspection of the suit land by the concerned revenue officer, after due notice to the parties concerned, is the decisive factor in the cases of correction of khasra girdawari. In the present case, it is not the allegation of the petitioner that either he was not given due notice or the land in dispute was not inspected, in the presence of respectables of the village, by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Dina Nagar, before issuing the orders for correction of khasra girdawari, in favour of respondent No.5. Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that there is no illegality in the impugned orders much less patent illegality or perversity. No other argument was raised. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, it is unhesitatingly held that the present writ petition is bereft of any merit, without any substance and it must fail. No case for interference has been made out. No other argument was raised. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, it is unhesitatingly held that the present writ petition is bereft of any merit, without any substance and it must fail. No case for interference has been made out. Resultantly, the instant petition is ordered to be dismissed.