INDER SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Inder Singh petitioner approached the Rehabilitation Department for the transfer of urban evacuee land bearing Khasra Nos. 17/8/1/2, 8/2 and 8/4 situate in the revenue estate at Shahzada Nangal, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur, as a sub-lessee under rule 34-C of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 (hereafter the Rules). The Managing Officer declined the transfer vide order dated February 23, 1973. The petitioner filed an appeal which was rejected vide order dated May 17, 1973. The revision filed by the petitioner was, however, accepted and the case was remanded for fresh decision. The Managing Officer thereafter held that the petitioner was in continuous occupation of the land in dispute since 1956 and was further entitled to the transfer thereof at the assessed price. The Settlement Commissioner agreed with the report of the Managing Officer and allowed the transfer of the land in dispute to the petitioner at the assessed price. Gurbax Singh respondent who had in the meantime purchased the land in open auction held on August 21, 1967, filed a revision against the order of the Settlement Commissioner and the Chief Settlement Commissioner vide order dated January 11, 1979 (P.2) set aside the order of the Settlement Commissioner holding that the petitioner had not been in continuous possession of the land since January 1, 1956. The sale by auction in favour of Gurbux Singh respondent was upheld. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (hereafter the Act) which was dismissed by order dated October 23, 1979 (P.3). The petitioner has assailed the orders P.2 and P.3 in the present writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner had filed a suit for a declaration against Budha Singh on August 22, 1978, that he had remained in possession of the land in dispute from Kharif 1961 to Rabi 1963. Budha Singh admitted the claim of the petitioner and the later's suit was decreed by Subordinate Judge, Gurdaspur, vide order dated December 17, 1973 (P.1). The Financial Commissioner while disposing of the petition under Section 33 of the Act held that the order of the civil Court was without jurisdiction inasmuch as the civil court could not adjudicate upon the question of correction of Khasra Girdawari entries under section 158 of the Land Revenue Act.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has conceded that the civil court has no jurisdiction to direct the correction of the entries in the revenue records, including the Khasra Girdawari under section 158 of the Land Revenue Act. He has, however, argued that the civil Court vide order dated December 17, 1973, did not direct the correction of the Khasra Girdawari entries. The Civil Court granted a declaration to the petitioner against Budha Singh that the petitioner had cultivated the land in dispute from Kharif 1961 to Rabi 1963. The argument proceeds that the order or decree of the civil court as it stands cannot be held to be ultra vires. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner must prevail.