PAWAN KUMAR Vs. TARSEM SINGH @ SEMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition was dismissed by Shri P. Ram, Financial Commissioner Appeals on 6.11.2002. Review application of the petitioner was admitted by Shri R.P.S. Pawar, Financial Commissioner Appeals, my predecessor vide order dated 9.9.2003 on the ground that the petitioner's counsel was not heard but his presence was inadvertently marked.

(2.) I heard the arguments of the counsel for the respondent on 27.10.2005 and perused the written arguments submitted by the counsel for the petitioner. This revision petition relates to correction of girdawari and an important ground taken in the revision is that despite order dated 9.10.1998 of Civil Judge, Mansa restraining the present respondent from dispossessing him, the respondent forcibly dispossessed him in May, 1999. Although the respondent's application dated 20.2.1998 for correction of girdawari had earlier been declined by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Mansa vide order dated 9.7.1998 and his appeal was also dismissed by the Collector vide order dated 7.12.1998, the Commissioner (Appeals), Faridkot Division wrongly set aside these orders and remanded the case, vide order dated 14.2.2001, directing the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade to inspect the spot in the presence of both the parties and decide the same on merits. The petitioner pleads that after the issuance of aforesaid temporary injunction order dated 9.10.1998 by the Civil Judge against the present respondents, the latter forcibly dispossessed him whereupon the petitioner approached the Civil Court which directed the respondents to restore his possession vide judgment dated 21.7.2001 which was further upheld by Additional District Judge, Mansa vide order dated 12.8.2002. It was held by the Additional District Judge that the present respondents were not owners in possession of the land and that they wrongly dispossessed the petitioner.

(3.) THE main question to be decided in this case is whether girdawari should be entered on the basis of physical possession contrary to findings and directions of civil Court. The other related question is whether mere physical possession should be seen or the legitimacy of the possession should also be seen. If a person is not able to explain legitimate way of his entry into possession of the land, whether such illegitimate or forcible possession should be recognized by the Revenue Officer through girdawaris which eventually enter into the record of rights and acquire presumption of truth.