RAM SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of impugned order dated 7.5.2014 (Annexure P-6) as well as order dated 3.4.2017 (Annexure P-7) passed by respondents No.1 and 2, respectively, whereby, the claim of the petitioner for change of Khasra Girdawari in his name has been rejected.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case as made out in present petition are that originally the land in dispute was owned by one Smt. Ajmer Kaur. The petitioner is asserting execution of a Will in his favour by said Ajmer Kaur. The mutation of inheritance of Ajmer Kaur was sanctioned in favour of Gurdev Kaur being her sister. Thereafter, the land was exchanged with the land of Gurpreet Singh. After the death of Ajmer Kaur, the petitioner came in possession of the land in dispute, yet he filed a civil suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the land in dispute on the basis of Will and the exchange deed is illegal and is not binding upon the petitioner. However, the suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed vide judgment dated 26.11.2011 on the ground that the prayer for possession has not been made. As per case of the petitioner, he was in possession of the land in dispute and there was no necessity to seek possession.

(3.) Aggrieved by said order, the petitioner filed an appeal, which was also dismissed vide order dated 16.2.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing R.S.A. No. 1361 of 2015, which is pending after issuance of notice of motion. The petitioner being in actual physical possession of the land in dispute filed an application for correction of Khasra Girdawari, which was dismissed by AC 2nd Grade (Naib Tehsildar) vide its order dated 17.10.2012 on the ground that civil case was pending. Aggrieved by said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector, which was allowed vide order dated 30.4.2013 and the case was remanded to Assistant Collector 2nd Grade (Naib Tehsildar) with a direction that petitioner be heard and given sufficient opportunity to produce the evidence in his favour and the application be decided after visiting the spot, on the basis of possession. Order dated 30.4.2013 was challenged by respondent No.3 by way of filing an appeal before the Commissioner, which was allowed vide order dated 7.5.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner challenged order dated 7.5.2014 by way of filing revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, which was dismissed vide order dated 4.2017.