CHARAN SINGH Vs. DEEPO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Charan Singh has filed this revision petition against the trial Court's impugned order, Annexure P-2 dated 13.9.1995 whereby the lower court has allowed the respondent's petition for passing a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree passed on 27.2.1990.

(2.) Petitioner's contention is that as per the High Court's order Annexure P-3 dated 14.12.1993 petitioner is entitled to 8 Marlas and respondent is entitled to 6 Marlas out of Khasra No. 101. As a mistake was committed at the time of consolidation, the same was corrected under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act (in short the 'Act') by the State Government. Section 44 of the Act bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court but while passing the order Annexure P-2, the learned trial Court has acted beyond its jurisdiction and also against the High Court's order Annexure P-3 whereby order Annexure P-1 was affirmed. The present matter relates to revenue authorities which is decided upto the Court of Financial Commissioner, Punjab. Hence, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide the matter. In Civil Writ Petition No. 7964 of 1992, the High Court has held that the petitioner is entitled to 8 Marlas out of Khasra No. 101 and respondent is entitled to 6 Marlas only. She cannot claim 3/4th out of this number. Hence, it is prayed that the final decree proceedings be quashed'and Annexure P-2 be set aside.

(3.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner's contention was that he along with respondent co-sharers at the time of perpetration of holdings. They got their joint holdings partitioned and the petitioner was given land comprised in Khasra No. 101. During Consolidation proceedings, some mistake was committed. Therefore, he filed a petition under Section 42 of the Act for getting the necessary relief. The Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings vide his order dated 23.9.1988 accepted his petition and remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer with a direction to refix and re-allot the land out of khasra Nos. 212 and 213. The Consolidation Officer did not carry out the instruction of the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings. Hence, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer, who allowed his appeal. But the respondent assailed that order of the Settlement Officer by filing a petition under Section 42 of the Act and the Director (land) passed the order on 15.5.1992 but by this order, he virtually reversed the order passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of holdings dated 23.9.1988, and hence, this order is unsustainable.