GRAM PANCHAYAT, FATEHGARH Vs. SATYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been moved against the order dated 17.8.1999 of the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala vide which he had accepted the appeal of respondents and set aside the order dated 19.3.1997 and 28.8.1997 passed by Ld. Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, Jagadhri and Ld. Collector, Yamunanagar respectively.

(2.) FACTS in brief of this case are that Gram Panchayat Fatehgarh filed an application dated 8.12.1995 for correction of khasra girdawari of land measuring 12 kanal 2 marla for rabi 1993 onwards situated in village Fatehgarh, Tehsil Jagadhri District Yamunanagar in the court of Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade, Jagadhri. Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Jagadhri after spot inspection and hearing the parties came to the Gram Panchayat had been leasing out this land on patta. He vide his order dated 19.3.1997 ordered correction of khasra girdawari in the name of Gram Panchayat. Aggrieved by this order an appeal was filed by the respondents in the Court of Collector, Yamunanagar who also after hearing the parties and going through the record vide order dated 28.8.1997 dismissed the appeal holding therein that Assistant Collector 2nd Grade not only took into consideration the evidence led on the record but also duly conducted the spot inspection and his order is based on first hand evidence. Against this order respondents preferred a revision petition in the Court of Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala who vide his order dated 17.8.1999 accepted the appeal and set aside the orders of the lower courts. Ld. Commissioner in his order had held that as per record the land in dispute is in possession of respondents as gair-marusi as is evident from jamabandi for the years 1986-87 and 1991-92. Gram Panchayat claimed to be its ownership under the amendment carried out in the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1992 and the same is still pending in the High Court for decision. He further held that Gram Panchayat had failed to prove as to how and when they took possession of the said land. Merely by writing of the Assistant Collector, Gram Panchayat cannot be made owner of the land. There is no detailed note on the record. Ld. Commissioner had concluded that respondents are in continuous possession of the said land which had never been disturbed and orders of the lower court are not based on facts. The present revision petition has been moved in this court against the order of Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, dated 17.8.1999.

(3.) THE counsel for respondent argued that respondent have filed a civil suit against Girdhari Lal to the restrained from taking possession. Petitioner appeared in this case and contested but later absented and court decided in favour of respondent on 12.5.1998 (para 20). Once the Civil Court gives the findings it is binding on the revenue court. This is supported by 1998(2)- PLJ-177 where it has been decided that as per Punjab Land Records Manual para 9.9 the correction of khasra girdawari as per finding of civil Court has to be respected by Revenue Officer. In the jamabandi for 1986-87 the land is jumba malkaan and in 1991-92 the land has been shown as panchayat deh. Mutation has been entered in the name of Panchayat in compliance with the amendment carried out in Haryana Punjab Land Act which is pending in the High Court for decision. In both the jamabandis respondents have been shown in possession of the land but it is not understood how the Panchayat had taken possession of land. In support of his argument he cited 1991-PLJ-87 in which it has been held that under Section 82 of Punjab Tenancy Act wrong view of law is no ground for review and proper remedy is by way of writ petition for certiorari to High Court. In 1994(2) AILLR 565 how and why party came into possession and change in khasra girdawari grossly violated and before affecting this change patwari should have informed the other party. Trial Court rightly decreed in the suit. Further in 1998(2)-PLJ-309, it has been decided that khasra girdawari correction on the basis of spot inspection cannot be substituted for documentary evidence or a valid instrument of transfer and khasra girdawari ordered on the basis of verbal inquiry conducted on the spot to be set aside. 1997(1)-PLJ-18 was cited wherein it has been decided that revenue officer where does not record detailed spot inspection report but simply states that he visited the spot, decision of case on such spot inspection is untenable as stated in section 20 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. The counsel for the petitioner rebutted this argument of the respondent's counsel. He had that Panchayat was not owner but was leasing out this land for many years and lease money was being deposited in the Panchayat's account.