JASVIR INDER SINGH Vs. JASJIT INDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is under section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act against the order dated 25.3.2003 of Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of this case are that on the application made by Jasjit Inder Singh the present respondent the A.C.II Lambi vide his order dated 15.12.1998 ordered the correction of Khasra Girdawari of the land measuring 194 Kanals and 19 Marlas, situated in Village Waring Khera, Tehsil Malout, District Muktsar from Sauni 1994 till date. Appeal filed by Jasvir Inder Singh against this order was rejected by Collector Sub Division Malout vide order dated 6.4.1999. Similarly revision filed by him was rejected by the Commissioner on 14.6.2001. Review filed by Jasvir Inder Singh was also dismissed by the Commissioner on 25.3.2003. Still aggrieved Jasvir Inder Singh filed revision petition No. ROR 518 of 2003 which was dismissed by Sh. R.P.S. Pawar, IAS, the then Financial Commissioner Appeals-II, Punjab on 26.7.2004 on the ground that no appeal lies against an order refusing to review or confirming on review a previous order. Against this order Jasvir Inder Singh filed C.W.P No. 19264 of 2004 which was heard by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court along with C.W.P No. 19312 of 2004 and the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court disposed off the writ petition No. 19264 of 2004 in view of the order dated 9.12.2008 in C.W.P No. 19312 of 2004 whereby the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court remanded the case back to Financial Commissioner Appeals-II for re-adjudication on merit, holding that a revision was competent under the mandate of section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act and the same ought to have been adjudicated upon merits. The Hon'ble High Court directed for re-adjudication of the case on merits, so far as the challenge raised by the petitioner to the impugned order dated 14.6.2001 is concerned. The case was fixed for arguments on 7.7.2009 when Sh. Harminder Singh counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Ashok Kumar Verma, counsel for the respondent desired to decide the case on the basis of their written arguments.

(3.) ON the other hand it is contended in the written arguments filed by the counsel for the respondent that the all mode of service were resorted/effected by the A.C.II before proceeding the present respondent against ex parte. Despite ordinary and dasti summons, registered summons were also sent to petitioner and when the petitioner could not be served by ordinary way of service; substitute service was adopted and Mustri Munadi was got done in the village. But the petitioner failed to appear before the A.C.II and hence he was proceeded against ex parte. It is further contended that spot inspection was made by the A.C. II on 14.12.1998 in the presence of Halqa Patwari and a large number of village people, when the present petitioner was also present but he refused to sign. As regards the service of petitioner at Bathinda it is contended that no proof is given regarding residence of the petitioner at Bathinda. It is averred that the petitioner himself give his address of Wring Khera in the appeal/revision filed before Collector and Commissioner; and even before this court. Besides this, he cultivates 80 acres of land in village Wring Khera and owns orchard in an area of 8 acres land in, village Wring Khera and a large cattle stock and the claim of the petitioner is wholly frivolous. Moreover, Mushtari Munadi is to be done at the disputed place only. As regarding the plea of transfer application of the petitioner it is contended in the written arguments of the respondent that the transfer application has already been filed, by Collector on 27.10.1998 when no case of correction of Khasra Girdawari was pending. before A.C.II. Rather the application for correction of Khasra Girdawari was filed on 12.11.1998. It is further averred that entries regarding correction of Khasra Girdawari, after orders of A.C.II have been recorded in the subsequent jamabandies and as such the revenue officers, have no jurisdiction to interfere in the matter because Khasra Girdawari after the entries in jamabandi can be challenged only before the civil court. Regarding averment of the petitioner that the civil court at Gidderbaha had decreed the suit in his favour vide judgement and decree dated 4.11.1995 holding that he was in possession of the land in question, it is contended by the respondent that the suit was infact for permanent injunction for restraining the defendant from alienating more land than his share and specific Khasra numbers and from raising any permanent construction and relief was granted accordingly.