DURGA SINGH Vs. MUNSHI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief facts of the case are that the present petitioner filed an application before the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Sundernagar on 14.10.2003 for incorporating a judgment passed by the learned Sub -Judge, Sundernagar dated 12.6.2003 in the revenue records. As per the judgment delivered in civil suit No. 69/99, the learned Sub Judge had dismissed a suit for declaration filed by the present petitioner claiming that he has right to irrigate his land comprising Khasra No. 299 situated in Mohal Sohar with the water source situated in Khasra No. 682 of Mohal Nalag. The petitioner presented the copy of the judgment to the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade submitting that issue No. 3 framed by the learned Sub Judge in the case was, whether the order dated 21.11.1990 of A.D.M., Mandi directing the land of the defendant (present petitioner) in Khasra No. 685 to be recorded as irrigated land is null and void as alleged? - This issue, according to the petitioner, was decided in his favour and the petitioner sought the implementation of the findings of the court on this issue in the revenue record. The Assistant Collector, Ist Grade dismissed the application of the petitioner holding that the suit for declaration filed by him had been dismissed and no specific relief had been given and no action could be taken as sought by the petitioner. This order was challenged in appeal before the Collector, Sub -Division, Sundernagar who dismissed the appeal on 12.1.2005 holding that the learned Sub -Judge, Sundernagar after discussing the matter in detail had dismissal the suit which distinctly mean that the decree sought by the present petitioner was not accepted and as far the issue No. 3 is concerned the revenue court cannot go beyond the scope of final conclusion of the learned Court in the matter. The learned Collector also observed that the petitioner has moved an application before the learned Sub Judge, Sundernagar under Section 152 of the CPC for amendment of the judgment and decree and this action vindicated the stand taken by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade. The petitioner assailed the order of the Collector before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi who had observed that mutation No. 212 of Mohal Nalag was attested in pursuance to orders of ADM, Mandi dated 19.11.1990 and the classification of land comprising Khasra No. 685 was changed from 'Banjar Kadim to 'Dhani Awal. The learned Sub Judge, Sundernagar while deciding a civil suit filed by the petitioner had held the said order of the ADM as null and void. According to the learned Commissioner the finding of the civil court should have been implemented as far as practicable in the revenue records. He has therefore, recommended the case to this court for passing of appropriate order.

(2.) THE record of the case has been seen and counsel for the parties heard. The counsel for the petitioner supported the recommendation made by the learned Divisional Commissioner through his order dated 6.3.2006.

(3.) HAVING weighed the arguments of counsel for the parties, it is quite evident that the orders passed by the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade dated 11.12.1990 and ADM, Mandi dated 21.11.1990 are in order. Indeed it is only the decree of the civil court that is binding on the parties and is also appealable and therefore is required to be implemented by the revenue courts. A finding on any particular issue framed in the case cannot be separately taken up for implementation unless the same is included in the decree of the case. In view of this, the recommendation of the learned Divisional Commissioner made vide his order dated 6.3.2006 is rejected.