HARBANS LAL Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The land in dispute, which was urban evacuee agricultural land measuring 36 Kanals 19 Marlas was alleged to have been originally allotted to one Smt. Kirpa Devi and the petitioner cultivated the said land under her as a lessee. It is alleged that Smt. Kirpa Devi died in 1950 and even after her death the petitioner continued to cultivate the same. Respondents 2 and 3 who are the legal representatives of Smt. Kirpa Devi, never cultivated the same. In Kharif 1955 to Rabi 1959 in the column of cultivation in the Khasra Girdawari the entries were wrongly made and the cultivation was shown in the name of Smt. Kirpa Devi, this was wrong because the lady had died long before that. Prior to 1955 the entries in the cultivation column were in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner filed a suit before the Assistant Collector for correction of the entries in the cultivation column regarding the land in dispute. The suit was decreed by the Assistant Collector vide his order dated 26th March, 1966. Respondents 2 and 3 went up in appeal before the Collector which was allowed and the order of the Assistant Collector was set aside vide order dated 6th September, 1966. The petitioner went in revision before the Commissioner which was allowed on 20th May, 1967 and the case remanded for redecision. Respondents 2 and 3 then went before the Financial Commissioner in revision. Their revision was allowed on the ground that the suit for the correction of the revenue entries was not competent and the correction should have been sought by an application in accordance with the provisions of para 9.9. of the Land Records Manual. It is in these circumstances that the present writ petition has been filed against the orders of the Financial Commissioner.

(2.) Written statement has been filed by respondents 2 and 3 the legal representatives of Smt. Kirpa Devi. They admitted the death of Smt. Kirpa Devi in 1950, but their stand is that the entries cannot be corrected by way of a suit.

(3.) Thus the only question which arises for determination is whether the Financial Commissioner was justified in setting aside the order of the Commissioner. No doubt technically he was correct that no suit was competent and only an application for correction of the entries under para 9.9 of the Land Records Manual should have been filed. Yet the fact remains that Smt. Kirpa Devi died in the year 1950 and the petitioner was in actual cultivating possession of the land as sub-lessee. Entries are also in his name upto Rabi, 1955. But during Kharif 1955 to Rabi 1959 also entries were recorded in the name of late Smt. Kirpa Devi, which could obviously not be recorded in the name of a dead person and were patently wrong. In this situation the declaratory suit was filed by the petitioner. He should have filed an application in accordance with law. Any way his declaratory suit could be treated as an application in accordance with the provisions of para 9.9 of the Land Records Manual. In my view manifest injustice has been done to the petitioner.