TALWINDER SINGH Vs. HARBHAJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present case has been reported by Shri N.K. Arora, IAS, Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, under section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, against the order dated 31.1.1991, passed by the SDO- cum-Collector, Amritsar, in case of correction of khasra girdawari, with his opinion that, the order of the lower courts be set aside, by accepting the present revision petition, as per his reference dated 26.2.1992.

(2.) IN brief, the facts of this case, are that Harbhajan Singh S/o Tara Singh had made an application on 6.4.1989 against Talwinder Singh etc. to the AC IInd Grade, Amritsar for the correction of Khasra girdawari entries, in respect of the land measuring 5K-5M, situate at village Verka, Tehsil Amritsar, for the crops of Kharif 1988 onwards, on the plea of that khasra girdawari had wrongly been entered in the name of Talwinder Singh etc. In the application, Harbhajan Singh has stated that the said land was obtained by him from Kartar Singh, father of Talwinder Singh etc. in exchange for some other land and an agreement dated 6.4.1978 was executed to that effect and Kartar Singh had since died. This application was opposed by Talwinder Singh etc. on the plea that the application for correction of khasra girdwari filed by Harbhajan Singh was not maintainable because they had already taken possession of the disputed land in execution of the judgment and decree dated 22.12.1987, passed by the Court of Shri S.K. Goel, Sub-Judge, Amritsar, which was executed on 14.2.1989 through the process of law, as per Rapat No. 206 of the Roznamcha Wagaiti for the year 1988-89, in respect of village Verka, and the applicant Harbhajan Singh, has no connection with this land and even earlier, also he was a trespasser, as concluded by the Civil Court. The AC IInd, Amritsar as per his order dated 3.8.1989, rejected these objections filed by Talwinder Singh etc. and decided to continue with the correction of khasra girdawari as requested by Harbhajan Singh. Against this interim order, the appeal filed by Talwinder Singh etc. was rejected by the Collector, Amritsar, as per his order dated 31.1.1990, on the plea, that the impugned order being an interim order only a revision petition was competent against this order and an appeal did not lie. Thereafter, the AC IInd, as per this order dated 30.7.1990, ordered the correction of khasra girdwari in the name of Harbhajan Singh from the crop of Rabi 1990 onwards, after visiting the spot on 26.6.1990. Aggrieved by this order, Talwinder Singh etc. filed an appeal before the Collector, Amritsar, who rejected the same as per his order dated 31.1.1991. Still aggrieved by this order, Talwinder Singh etc. filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar as a result of which, the present case has been reported with the recommendation that the impugned orders be set aside, as per the reference dated 26.2.1992.

(3.) AFTER careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the present revision petition has a merit and the same deserves to be accepted and the order dated 31.1.1991 passed by the Collector, Amritsar as well as the order dated 30.7.1990, passed by the AC IInd Grade, Amritsar deserves to the set aside. The analysis of the record indicates that the respondent-Harbhajan Singh, has no case at all, and he has proved to be trespasser on the land, and all his versions and assertions have proved to be wrong. The so-called exchange agreement dated 6.4.1978 alleged by Harbhajan Singh, has proved to be a sheer concoction because this agreement between Karnail Singh and Harbhajan Singh, has not been brought on the record, and there is nothing to show, that the mutation regarding the alleged exchange of land was sanctioned. The petitioners-Talwinder Singh etc. are the land owners and on relationship of any kind with the respondent-Harbhajan Singh has been established. The entries in the Jamabandies are in the names of Talwinder Singh etc. as ''Khudkast''. The Civil court decree and judgment dated 22.12.1987, is clearly in favour of the petitioners-Talwinder Singh etc. which has clinched the issue, and execution of this decree on 14.2.1989, through the Revenue agency, has delivered physical possession of the said land to the petitioners-Talwinder Singh etc; and with this, the application dated 6.4.1989 made by Harbhajan Singh for the correction of khasra girdawari for the crops of Kharif 1988 onwards, had become clearly infructuous and should have been rejected. However, the AC IInd, Grade, Amritsar seems to have taken perverse view of matter by ignoring the delivery of physical possession to the petitioners on 14.2.1989, with the execution of the decree dated 22.12.1987, passed in their favour by the Sub Judge, Amritsar. The AC IInd wrongly and unjustifiably decided to continue with the application as per his order dated 3.8.1989; and in pursuance of that, passed the order dated 30.7.1990, correcting the entries of khasra girdawaris from Rabi 1990 onwards, in the name of Harbhajan Singh, which is absolutely untenable. The AC IInd Grade in his order has clearly admitted that no mutation of exchange of land has been sanctioned; the petitioners are owners of the land and in pursuance of a civil court decree they have taken physical possession of land and there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, either. Despite that, the AC IInd ordered the correction of khasra girdawari from the abovesaid crops, on the basis of a single and solitary instance, that, on the day, he had visited the disputed land, the said land was being irrigated from the tubewell owned by the respondent-Harbhajan Singh and his servant was managing the watercourse during irrigation. The A.C. IInd Grade has further admitted in his order, that, the respondent-Harbhajan Singh has forcibly occupied the said land after physical possession was delivered to the petitioners through a civil court decree and the respondent is an unauthorised occupant of the land, by force. The corrected entry in favour of respondent-Harbhajan Singh reads as, ''Gair Marusee Zabarkast''. This order of the A.C. IInd is not very sound, and the grounds on which he has passed the order, are hardly satisfactory and convincing. The A.C. IInd should not be have based his conclusion, on such flimsy grounds, because irrigation of the disputed land, in the described fashion could be stage-managed by the respondent-Harbhajan Singh, on the date fixed for spot inspection by the Revenue Officer, just to create evidence in his favour. Before the Revenue Officer, it was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that, the said irrigation on the date of inspection, from the tubewell owned by Harbhajan Singh, was arranged with the help of local police, which in my opinion, is not without a substance and cannot be ignored because during the year 1989-90, this area of district Amritsar, was in the grip of terrorism, and the police was quite active and dominant, and it was not difficult to engage the services of police, for a consideration, for such purposes. Even the working of a Revenue Officer, under some threat or pressure, during those days, also cannot be ruled out. However, the Revenue Officers are expected not to take any cognizance of or to give recognition to the forcible unauthorised occupation of the land, owned by others, by influential persons having muscle powers or other such overbearing avenues and they are also expected to ignore the dramatized and stage-managed scenes and are expected to go deep into the matter by ascertaining the persons as rightful claimants, the persons who prepared the said field for sowing, the persons who sowed it and the persons who are looking after the fields, and also keeping in view, the previous entries in the Jamabandies, Khasra girdawari registers, and the possible factors which could cause change over of possession. Entries to the effect of ''forcible unauthorised occupation'' in the revenue record should be avoided by the revenue staff and the khasra girdawari in such circumstances should continue in the name of the previous cultivators. Law of the land only recognizes the change, brought about by the due course of law, and not the change brought about by duress or by use of force. It will make a mockery of the court orders and judgments, if the possession delivered by the Revenue Agency, in execution of the civil court decree, is again disturbed by force, by some persons from whom it was retrieved earlier. The Revenue agency should refuse to recognise such a dispensation. What happened in the case, is unfortunate and reprehensible. So, in the instant case, the AC IInd wrongly ordered the correction of khasra girdawari, in the name of unauthorised occupant-Harbhajan Singh by taking into account, only flimsy, superfluous and extraneous factors without delving deep into the matter. The order of the AC IInd does not stand the scrutiny of its legality, propriety and regularity, and deserves to be quashed. Similarly, the Collector, Amritsar rejected the appeal against the order of the AC IInd, without proper application of mind, to the intricacies involved in this case. The order of the Collector being not sound, also deserves to be quashed. The learned Commissioner, as per his reference has rightly recommended the acceptance of the present revision petition and setting aside of the order passed by the Revenue Officers below, by giving very cogent and logical grounds, to which I fully agree.