JUDGMENT Mr. Amit Rawal J.:- Mr. Mani Ram Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the orders dated 18.10.2011 (Annexure P-4), 13.01.2009 (Annexure P-3) and 06.03.2007 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 respectively, are liable to be set aside on the premise that the petitioner-Sajjan Singh @ Sajjana @ Sampat had filed the suit for declaration against Rameshwar, Dharma and Phuliya son of Sheo Dutt & Dhup Dass chela Kishan Dass that he along with defendant Nos.1 to 3 in the civil suit are tenants of Dhup Dass on 1/3rd batai in equal share and therefore, entitled to get the name incorporated in the column of possession to the extent of 1/4th share in the jamabandi for the year 1963-64 and consequential relief of injunction. The said suit was decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 29.10.2005. However, Dhup Dass assailed the aforementioned judgment by filing the appeal which was dismissed on 04.03.2006 by holding that Sheo Dutt was a tenant under the owner. After his death the right of tenancy devolved on the lineal male descendant. 2. However during the pendency of the suit on 01.12.2004, the application on behalf of Rambir and Rajbir Chela Dhup Dass, respondent Nos.4 and 5 in the present writ petition filed an application before the Assistant Collector IInd Grade for correction of khasra girdawari of land measuring 24 kanals comprised in khasra No.353/11 (8-0), 12(8-0), 354/15 (8-0) situated in village Balasmand, Tehsil and District Hisar against Dharma, Rameshwar and Phuliya sons of Sheo Dutt. 3. The petitioner moved an application for impleadment in the aforementioned proceedings. However, the same was objected to by respondent Nos.4 and 5 but yet the application was allowed. 4. On having been impleaded as party, the petitioner moved an application on 10.01.2007 seeking dismissal of the application for correction of khasra girdawari on the premise that the civil suit of the petitioner which had been contested by their predecessor Dhup Dass has been decreed and they have not even succeeded in appeal. The aforementioned application was contested by filing reply dated 29.10.2005 but the same has erroneously been rejected vide order dated 06.03.2007 (Annexure P-2). 5. The aforementioned order was assailed by filing appeal before the Commissioner which was dismissed and the revision petition filed against the same also resulted into dismissal. Hence the present writ petition. 6. The aforementioned application was contested by filing reply dated 29.10.2005 but the same has erroneously been rejected vide order dated 06.03.2007 (Annexure P-2). 5. The aforementioned order was assailed by filing appeal before the Commissioner which was dismissed and the revision petition filed against the same also resulted into dismissal. Hence the present writ petition. 6. He further submitted that the Financial Commissioner has seriously erred in law while observing that the issue of tenancy and correction of khasra girdawari are different from each other and should not be mixed up whereas the position is otherwise. The orders, thus, lacked the application of mind as change in khasra girdawari can only be made when there is some base for the change. In fact, the khasra girdawari in favour of Dharma was wrong as he was working as siri of 1/4th share and girdawari in his name was wrongly entered. The plea of siri taken in the suit had also been decided against the respondents. 7. He further submitted that there was no legal right or base for change of khasra girdawari. In fact, in the present case, the land owner claimed the land from one of the brothers, son of Sheo Dut i.e. Dharma but Dharma could not have relinquished his tenancy rights. The orders of the authorities are non-speaking. The Commissioner, erroneously observed that the Assistant Collector will determine 1/4th share as per the Civil Court judgment. In fact, the application for correction of khasra girdawari could not have been entertained in view of the judgment and decree referred to above and therefore, the said application is liable to be dismissed. 8. Per contra, Mr. L.N. Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.4 and 5 submitted that the petitioner and his brothers, Dharma and Rameshwar and Phulia were in possession of 68 kanals 12 marlas as tenants under respondent Nos.4 and 5 whereas Dharma relinquished his tenancy of 24 kanals in favour of respondent-landowner and delivered the possession. Resultantly, for the aforementioned area i.e. 24 kanals, an application dated 01.12.2004 for correction of the cultivation entry/khasra girdawari was moved before the Assistant Collector but the petitioners did not want to continue with the aforementioned proceedings and sought for the dismissal of the same which has been rejected. 9. In fact, the brother of the petitioner accepted the order (Annexure P-2) in the absence of any challenge thereof. 9. In fact, the brother of the petitioner accepted the order (Annexure P-2) in the absence of any challenge thereof. While disposing of the appeal, the Commissioner had directed the Assistant Collector to verify whether Dharma had relinquished the tenancy of 1/4th share or not. The aforementioned order of the Commissioner was assailed by the answering respondents before the Financial Commissioner, who while allowing the revision held that the matter regarding correction of the khasra girdawari can be decided on merits and the finding of the Commissioner to the aforementioned extent stood modified. The present writ petition is gross misuse of the process of the Court as the petitioner had the liberty to contest the khasra girdawari by placing on record material for maintainability of the application. 10. As regards the civil suit, he submitted that the litigation was only with regard to tenant under the land owner, whose name was not recorded at any earlier point of time. There is no estoppel to the tenant to surrender the area of tenancy under his actual possession to the original land owner, thus, the Commissioner could not have directed the Assistant Collector to ensure that Dharma did not relinquish tenancy of more than area of his share in the total area. The component of tenancy could have also been seen but not in the manner and mode of dismissal of the application which tantamount to invoke the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. In fact, Dharma was a separate tenant in cultivable possession of separate piece of land and therefore, he could relinquish the area. Annexures R4/1/T to R- 4/10/T have been placed on record to show the factum of independent and separate tenancy. The provisions of Section 35 and 36 of the Punjab Tenancy Act are sacrosanct, thus, urges this Court for dismissal of the writ petition. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, appraised the paper book and of the view that there is no force and merit in the submissions of Mr. Mani Ram Verma, for, nothing prevented the petitioner to raise all the pleas taken in the present writ petition in the application moved by the private respondents seeking correction of the khasra girdawari, owing to the alleged relinquishment of tenancy rights by Dharma in favour of private respondents, clients of Mr. L.N. Verma. 12. Mani Ram Verma, for, nothing prevented the petitioner to raise all the pleas taken in the present writ petition in the application moved by the private respondents seeking correction of the khasra girdawari, owing to the alleged relinquishment of tenancy rights by Dharma in favour of private respondents, clients of Mr. L.N. Verma. 12. Moving of application seeking dismissal of the same tantamounts to prevent the right of apply of the parties, much less, a scuttling act. The Assistant Collector has all the trappings of the Civil Court to deal with the question of khasra girdwari as girdawari is only regarding entry for possession de hors of the fact of landlord or tenant. Regarding the title and tenancy right, separate remedy under the relevant provisions of statutory enactment is available. 13. I would be restraining to determine whether the tenancy was joint or separate as it would have have far reaching effect and consequence on the right of the parties to the lis, particularly, when the Assistant Collector seized of the matter for deciding the correction in the entry of cultivable possession/girdawari. 14. For the reasons aforementioned, I do not find any reason for setting aside the orders under challenge, much less, exercising the powers of judicial review. No ground for interference is made out. The writ petition is dismissed.