INDER SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE grievance of the petitioner is with respect to the Khasra Girdawri entries made in the revenue records for the period from Kharif 2006 onwards in respect of land measuring 5 Kanals 7 Marlas comprised in Rectangle No. 266, Khasra No. 11 in Village Kalayat, District Kaithal.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner the said land was mortgaged with possession with the petitioner vide registered mortgage deed dated 29.5.1959 and since then the petitioner is in continuous possession of the same. It is submitted that the entries in favour of Chander Bhan (respondent No. 5) have been made only on the basis of spot inspection carried out by the Assistant Collector II Grade Kalayat on 25.7.2007 (Annexure-P.8). Learned counsel contends that from the inspection that was carried out it was found that buffaloes of the petitioner were tied. However, it is mentioned that the same had been tied a day or two earlier and before that the buffaloes of Chander Bhan (respondent No. 5) had been tied and his garbage and cow dung etc. was also lying on this land. Therefore, it is submitted that the revenue authorities have gravely erred in passing the impugned orders.

(3.) IN the facts and circumstances of the present case the question as to who is in possession of the land is a disputed question of fact which would require the leading of evidence. The claim of the petitioner that the land is under mortgage with him in pursuance of mortgage deed dated 29.5.1959 would require to be proved by leading evidence and producing the mortgage deed on record and also by referring to the recitals contained therein. The proceedings for correcting Khasra Girdawaris are summary in nature and in case a person is aggrieved against the revenue entries he has a remedy of filing a civil suit for declaration under Section 45 of the Act. Therefore, keeping in view the disputed nature of facts as also the question regarding the foundation of the claim of the petitioner being in possession of the land in question on the basis of registered mortgage deed dated 29.5.1959 is liable to be proved. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to embark upon an inquiry with respect to disputed questions of fact and it would be just and expedient if the same is examined by the Civil Court. Accordingly, the civil writ petition is dismissed. However, in case the petitioner is aggrieved against the orders correcting the Khasra Girdawri entries in favour of Chander Bhan (respondent No. 5) he may seek his remedy in accordance with law by filing a civil suit in terms of Section 45 of the Act. It is made clear that nothing stated herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion with respect to the civil suit that may be filed by the petitioner. Order accordingly.