AMIN CHAND Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, REVENUE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 12.03.2013 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent No. 1, order dated 30.11.2007 (Annexure P-2) passed by Collector, Abohar and order dated 03.11.2006 (Annexure P-1) passed by Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade, Abohar. Brief facts of the case are that respondents No. 2 to 4 filed an application before Assistant Collector 2nd Grade for correction of khasra girdawri for the land comprised in Rect. No. 63, killa no. 2(8-0), 9 (8-0), 12(8-0), 19(8-0) situate in the area of village Raipura, Tehsil Abohar for kharif-2005 till date. The Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Abohar vide its order dated 03.11.2006, ordered correction of khasra girdawari in the name of respondents No. 2 to 4. Against that order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector and the Collector vide order dated 30.11.2007 upheld the order of the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade. Further the petitioner preferred a revision petition under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act before the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur and the Commissioner vide order dated 16.12.2008 accepted the revision petition and set-aside the orders of the Collector as well as Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Abohar. Thereafter, against the order of the Commissioner, respondents No. 2 to 4 filed an appeal before the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, who set-aside the order of the Commissioner dated 12.03.2013 (Annexure P-5) and restored the order of the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Abohar and the Collector. It needs to be mentioned here that the parties had earlier gone to Civil Court. The private respondents had filed a Civil Suit No. 23-1 of 11.02.2009, decided on 24.01.2011, whereby their suit for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner herein from interfering into peaceful possession of the plaintiffs, was dismissed. Even the appeal preferred against that order was also dismissed.

(2.) In pursuance of the notice of motion, respondents have filed reply contending that petitioner had filed civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction that was dismissed on 10.01.2013 and appeal against that judgment has also been dismissed. It is also contended that they had purchased the land in question from Smt. Lalita, Atul etc. and are in possession of the said land and prayed that present petition be dismissed.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file carefully.