GURMAIL SINGH Vs. MANN KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) , Briefly the facts of the case are that the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, Ellanabad allowed correction of Khasra girdawari entry in favour of Smt. Man Kaur respondent No. 1 in respect of the land measuring 20 kanals 10 marlas comprised in kila No. 68/6, 7, 8 situated in the village on the basis of his spot inspection and the inquirie made by him from the neighbouring tenants vide his order dated 19.10.89. Aggrieved with this order, the petitioners appealed before the Collector, Ellanabad alleging that Kishan Lal was owner in possession of the disputed land and sold the land in question to them through a registered sale deed dated 21.12.89 and had delivered the possession. The Assistant Collector without a notice to them has allowed the correction. The Collector after hearing both the parties found that the land in question was purchased on 21.12.89 subsequent to correction of the Khasra girdawari entries and held the respondent in cultivating possession. The Collector, therefore, rejected the appeal vide his order dated 9.10.92. The Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar also finding no illegality or mis-carriage of justice dismissed the revision petition vide his order dated 30.9.93. Now the petitioners have come in revision before this court.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel of both the sides and have perused the record. The counsel for the petitioner has stated that Kishan Lal respondent No. 2 was the owner in possession of the disputed land. He has sold this land in question to the petitioner through registered sale deed dated 21.12.89. The Assistant Collector IInd Grade has changed the girdawari entries in favour of Man Kaur without any notice to the petitioner or his predecessor in interest. The counsel for the petitioners argued further that a fraud in this case is writ large as is evident from the spot inspection and the order passed on the same day in violation of the para 9.9 of the Punjab Land Manual which has prescribed the manner for change of khasra girdawari entries. In support of his contention he referred to a ruling contained in 1990-PLJ-52 according to which entries changed without giving notice to the person in possession are void. The counsel for the petitioner referred to another ruling contained in 1976-PLJ-26 which has held that mode prescribed by the Financial Commissioner must be followed and the proof in favour of change must be placed on record. Ruling contained in 1992-PLJ-616 further has prescribed to notify in writing to the affected persons and keep on record the proof of such notification.

(3.) THE counsel for the respondent on the other hand has stated that the petitioner has no locus standi at the time of the passing an order dated 19.10.89 by the Assistant Collector as the land in question was purchased much after it. So the petitioners have nothing to do with this land and its possession. The petitioner could only go and file an application for change of girdawari for the subsequent crops as the entry in favour of the respondents now stands incorporated in the jamabandi 1992-93. Only the civil court has the jurisdiction now to change this entry which has become part of jamabandi. The plea of the petitioner that no notice was given to him is maintainable as the respondent No. 2 (Kishan Lal) was the owner in possession at that time and he was duly impleaded as party before the Collector, Commissioner as well as the Civil Court. He has not come and disputed the orders in favour of the respondent. The counsel for the respondent argued further that this is a case of physical verification by a responsible public servant who has no malice etc. against the petitioner and has passed his orders in normal course of his duty. The petitioners have already challenged and appealed against the Civil Court decree produced in the court. The matter has yet not been decided finally by the civil court. The counsel for the respondent has, therefore, prayed that the orders of the lower revenue officers may not be disturbed.