GURCHARAN SINGH Vs. GURMIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . The present case has been reported by Shri P.R. Pawar, IAS, Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1987, with his opinion, that the order dated 5.9.1991, passed by the S.D.O. (C) cum-Collector, Gurdaspur, as well as the order dated 18.2.1991, passed by the AC II, Gurdaspur, be set aside, while accepting the present revision petition, and the khasra girdawari entries for the disputed crops, may also be allowed in the name of the petitioner, as per his reference dated 8.12.1993.

(2.) THE brief facts of this case are that Gurmit Singh resident of village Nangal Kotli, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur made an application to A.C. II Grade, Gurdaspur on 9.8.90 for the correction of khasra girdawari in his name, in respect of land measuring 5-K-7 M, situate at village Shazada Nangal Tehsil and District Gurdaspur, for the crops from Kharif, 1989 to Rabi, 1990. In the application, it is stated that the applicant has been cultivating the disputed land for the last many years, but the khasra girdawari entries, recorded in the Jamabandi for the year 1987-88, have wrongly been made in the name of respondents. It is further stated, that the respondents Nos. 1 and 6 are owners of the land, and the khasra girdawari has been wrongly shown, in the column of cultivating, in the name of respondents Nos. 7 and 8. After initiating the necessary action on this application, A.C. II as per his order dated 18.2.1991, ordered the correction of the khasra girdawari for the said land in favour of the applicant for the crops of the Kharif 1989 to Rabi, 1990. Against this order, Kirpal Singh and Gurcharan Singh filed an appeal before the Collector, Gurdaspur, on the ground, that they have been cultivating the disputed land for the last 40 years, and before ordering the correction of khasra girdawari, the A.C.II had not issued any notice to them; that the A.C. II had not visited the disputed land on 15.2.91 as alleged and in the relevant Jamabandi, in the column of cultivation, their names have been recorded. They had prayed that the appeal be accepted and the impugned order passed by the A.C II be set aside. The Collector, Gurdaspur as per his order dated 5.9.91, had rejected this appeal. Still aggrieved by this order, Gulshan Singh and Kirpal Singh filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, on the grounds stated in the petition dated 15.10.1991, as a result of which, the present case has been reported by the Commissioner with the recommendation that the impugned orders be set aside and the khasra girdawari entries be allowed in the name of the petitioner, for the disputed crops.

(3.) AFTER careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and after perusal of the record, I am of the view that the present revision petition has merit and the same deserves to be accepted, and the impugned orders merit to be set aside. Perusal of the record indicates, that the A.C. II Gurdaspur had passed his order dated 18.2.1991 ordering the correction of Khasra Girdawari in favour of the Gurmit Singh, with a partisan attitude. No proper service was effected on the respondents, as Mushtri Munadi for the service of respondents was ordered straightaway, with a view to show that all out efforts were made to effect service of the respondents; but actually, it appears that this was only a ploy, to complete the requisite formalities. The A.C. II failed to effect service of the respondents, in accordance with the provisions of section 20, of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. As such, the order of A.C. II suffers from the illegality and material irregularities. The A.C. II Gurdaspur is stated to have visited the spot, but no spot inspection report is available on the record. In those cases, where the Revenue Officer does not record detailed spot inspection report, and simply states that he has visited the spot and decides the case on that basis this action would be untenable and the observation unfounded, with a resultant effect as if no spot inspection was done at all. Thus, in the true sense, it cannot be accepted that the A.C. II had actually visited the spot, before ordering the correction of khasra girdawari in the name of Gurmit Singh. A perusal of the order dated 18.2.1991 shows that, even the A.C. II had not come to a decisive and conclusive findings, about the factum of actual cultivation of land, by the applicant Gurmit Singh, as he has recorded, This shows, that the A.C. II did not come to a definite conclusion, and ordered the correction of khasra girdawari, on the basis of presumptions and guess work. This does not inspire confidence about the veracity of findings, arrived at by the A.C. II. This order of the A.C. II is faulty, being not free from the illegality and irregularities.