GURDIP SINGH Vs. MANGAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHORT reply has been filed by respondent No. 1 today in the court, which is taken on record. Copy thereof has been supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner is seeking prosecution of the respondents for committing contempt of this Court by disobeying the order dated 9.1.2001. Vide said order, RSA No. 3870 of 2000 filed by the petitioner and his brother Gurmail Singh was admitted and it was further ordered that status-quo regarding possession and alienation be maintained.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for respondent No. 2 has drawn the attention of the Court towards his affidavit wherein it has been submitted that on 20.11.2007 at about 3.15 p.m., Mangal Singh, vendor, produced a sale-deed for registration before him in the presence of Apinderjit Singh, vendee and Amarjit Singh son of Nishan Singh and the parties were identified by Joginder Singh, Lambardar of village Raja Sansi. Alongwith the said sale-deed, Mangal Singh also produced a copy of jamabandi for the year 2002-03 prepared by Tajinder Singh, Patwari of village Raja Sansi, relating to the land being sold as proof of his ownership and an affidavit of the vendor duly attested by the Oath Commissioner, Ajnala, wherein he had declared that there was no stay order qua the property being transferred. As the copy of the jamabandi prepared by the Patwari did not contain any averment regarding any stay and keeping in view the affidavit submitted by Mangal Singh that there was no stay qua the property being sold, the sale-deed in question was registered by him, i.e., respondent No. 2. However, after receiving notice of the present petition from this Court, respondent No. 2 got verified from the concerned official record and obtained the attested copies thereof before moving Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ajnala to initiate appropriate legal action against Tajinder Singh, Patwari, for supplying incorrect and forged jamabandi in respect of the land owned and possessed by Mangal singh. As a result of the above said letter, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ajnala, got the matter enquired into by the present Tehsildar, Ajnala, who after perusing the entire relevant record, found that while issuing a copy of the jamabandi for the year 2002-03 regarding the land in question, Tajinder Singh, Patwari intentionally did not mention the factm of recording of Rapat No. 294 in the same and only mentioned about Rapat Nos. 89 dated 27.10.2007 and 386 dated 2.5.2006 thereon, whereas the order of status-quo regarding alienation passed by this Court on 9.1.2001 was recorded in the original jamabandi vide Rapat No. 294. The said report has since been forwarded by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ajnala to Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar, for initiating departmental proceedings against Tajinder Singh, Patwari, who was actually responsible for issuing a forged jamabandi in which note regarding interim order passed by this Court was intentionally omitted. Learned State counsel further submits that respondent No. 2 tenders unqualified apology for his aforementioned lapse and he would be careful in future.