AJMER SINGH Vs. RANJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief facts of this revision. petition are that Ranjit Singh (respondent) moved an application dated 26.5.1997, to the AC IIG, Naraingarh, for the correction of Khasra Girdawari for the period from Kharif 1996 to Rabi 1997. The said application was based on the pleas that the defendants were joint owners of the land in dispute alongwith him and share of the petitioner was to the extent of 50% in the said land which is situated in village Bhulkari. Ranjit Singh claimed himself to be Gair Marusi tenant of Ramji Lal co-sharer, who died in 1986.

(2.) RANJIT Singh-respondent challenged the entry of Khasra Girdawari to the extent of full extent in the name of the present petitioner and prayed that the Khasra Girdawari of 1/2 of the land should be corrected in his favour. AC IIG, Mulana, (as jurisdiction was shifted from Naraingarh to Mulana) accepted the application of the respondent Ranjit Singh on 16.1.1998 and ordered correction of Khasra Girdawari in respect of 3 Kanals 14 Marlas of land which is 1/2 of the total land in dispute. These findings of AC IIG, Mulana, were based on spot inspection dated 9.1.1998, according to which Ranjit Singh was found in cultivating possession. The petitioner went in appeal before the learned Collector, Ambala, who dismissed the appeal of the present petitioner, Ajmer Singh, vide order, dated 30.9.1998 and observed that Ranjit Singh was cultivating a portion of the disputed land and the Khasra Girdawari had been rightly corrected in his name by the AC IIG, Mulana.

(3.) AT the tirne of arguments the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1, took the plea that the revision petition is not maintainable in the present form as per the ground taken in para No. 1 of the revision petition. The petitioner has raised allegation against AC IIG, Naraingarh and then AC IIG, Mulana and none of them has been impleaded as necessary party. This objection of the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 was ruled out by this Court as the petition has to be decided on legal and factual merits of the case and presence of Revenue Officers is not necessary.