EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RAJASTHAN FEEDER DIVISION AND ORS Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is brought up for hearing after it was previously adjourned sine die on 02.03.2009 for the petitioner's counsel to be ready for arguments.

(2.) The challenge in the writ petition is against an order passed by the Revenue Authorities making a mutation in the name of the private respondent shown as 5th respondent in the writ petition. The proceedings came to be passed on an objection taken by the 5th respondent that in the khasra girdawari, his name was required to be entered but it had been entered wrongly in the name of the petitioner. All the authorities had stated that the Naib Tehsildar had carried out a spot inspection in the presence of the petitioner and found that the entry was required to be modified.

(3.) The only point that is urged before me by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that entry could not have been altered by the revenue officials and the appropriate remedy would have been only to direct the 5th respondent to approach the Civil Court for appropriate relief. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers me to a decision in Tarlok Singh Vs. Financial Commissioner Co-operation, Punjab, Chandigarh and others, 2004 3 RCR(Civ) 548. The Division Bench was considering a case of Civil Court judgment on the basis of which entries were require to be made in the revenue record but the revenue officials were actually sitting in judgment over what the Civil Court had directed. In that context, the Court said that the revenue officials will not sit over the Civil Court judgments and decrees. This judgment cannot be applicable in a case where there is no other civil court judgment that dictates entry to be in the name of the petitioner.