LAWS(P&H)-2007-10-58

MANMOHAN SINGH Vs. ANJALI BHAWRA

Decided On October 29, 2007
MANMOHAN SINGH Appellant
V/S
Anjali Bhawra Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act against the order dated 21.2.2006 passed by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, in a case concerning correction of Khasra Girdawari.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that respondent Nos. 4 to 6 filed an application before the Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade, Ludhiana (East) for correction of Khasra Girdawari from Kharif 1999. However, the Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana transferred the case to the Court of the Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade, Ludhiana (West). The spot was inspected by the Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade who found that the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 were in actual physical possession of the suit land. The Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade, Ludhiana (West) vide order dated 20.10.2000 corrected Khasra Girdawari in the name of respondent Nos. 4 to 6. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector, Ludhiana (East) who dismissed the same vide order dated 7.3.2002. The petitioner further challenged the order of the Collector before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala who also dismissed the same vide order dated 21.2.2006. Hence the present revision.

(3.) SHRI G.S. Nagra, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the entries of Khasra Girdawari have been incorporated in the Jamabandi for the year 2991-2002 in the name of respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6. The counsel for the respondents has drawn my attention to the citation 1979 PLJ Page 284 in which it has been held that, "Khasra Girdawari entries - Correction of Khasra Girdawari entries already incorporated in latest and subsequent Jamabandi - Revenue Officers cannot change such Khasra Girdawari entries - Remedy of aggrieved party - To seek relief from competent Civil Court by filing regular civil suit." It was also submitted that in the Jamabandi for the years 1981- 82, 1986-87 and 1991-92, the vendors of the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 were in possession of the suit land. It was prayed that the revision petition may be dismissed.