unjab-Haryana High Court
Gurdev Singh vs Financial Commissioner ... on 4 September, 2012
CIVIL WRIT PETITIOIN NO.15484 OF 2010 :{ 1 }:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 04, 2012
Gurdev Singh
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
Financial Commissioner (Appeals-II), Punjab, Chandigarh and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. M. S. Rakkar, Sr.Advocate with
Mr. P. S. Baath, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. B.B.S.Teji, Addl.A.G., Punjab,
for the State.
Mr. K. S. Cheema, Advocate,
for respondent No.5.
*****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.15484 of 2010 (Gurdev Singh Vs. Financial Commissioner (Appeals-II), Punjab, Chandigarh and others) and 15241 of 2010 (Avtar Singh Vs. Financial Commissioner (Appeals-II), Punjab, Chandigarh and others). For disposal of these writ petitions, the facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition No.15484 of 2010.
The petitioner had filed an application for correction of Khasra Girdawari regarding land bearing Khewat No.24, Khatoni CIVIL WRIT PETITIOIN NO.15484 OF 2010 :{ 2 }:
No.46, Khasra Nos.13//2/2 (5-4), 20//8 (7-8) situated in Village Simbli, Tehsil and district Hoshiarpur. After inspecting the spot, the Assistant Collector ordered correction of Khasra Girdawari on 14.6.2000 in the name of the petitioner as was prayed for.
Avtar Singh, respondent No.14 had also filed a separate application for correction of Khasra Girdawari in his favour, which was also allowed. Respondent No.5, Jaswant Singh, filed two appeals against the aforesaid orders passed by the Assistant Collector before the Collector. The Collector accepted the appeals and set-aside the orders passed by the Assistant Collector, which is stated to be on flimsy grounds and without taking into consideration the evidence led by the parties. The petitioner then filed an appeal before the Commissioner. Avtar Singh also appealed against the order before the Commissioner. Both the appeals were heard and dismissed on 30.4.2003. Against these orders, the petitioner and Avtar Singh filed revisions, which were dismissed on 2.12.2009. Reference is made to the dispute, which had arisen before the Civil Court. Two appeals were filed against the judgements and decrees passed by the Civil Judge, which were accepted by the Additional District Judge vide judgement dated 28.9.2004, Annexures P-5 and P-6. Even the Regular Second Appeals filed against these orders were dismissed and copies of the orders are on record as Annexures P-7 and P-8. The Special Leave Petition filed against this order was also dismissed and order in this regard is Annexure P-9.
The submission of counsel for the petitioner is that the Civil Court decrees, which have acquired finality, are required to be CIVIL WRIT PETITIOIN NO.15484 OF 2010 :{ 3 }:
followed by the revenue authorities. He further stated that the Collector and other authorities have ignored the findings recorded in the decrees passed by Civil Court.
Mr.Cheema, counsel appearing for respondent No.5, has seriously joined issue in this regard with learned counsel for the petitioner. The counsel rather submits that he would also rely upon judgements and decrees, Annexures P-5 and P-6. As per him, the jamabandi entries have been recorded strictly as per the judgements and decrees passed by the Civil Court.
Since there is no dispute between the parties, what was required to be seen is whether the decrees of the Civil Court have been kept in view while recording jamabandi entries. Primarily nothing could be pointed out before me that the jamabandi is contrary to the decrees, Annexures P-5 and P-6. However, still, if there is any violation of the Civil Court decrees, Annexures P-5 and P-6, which have acquired finality, the petitioner would be at liberty to move an application before the Financial Commissioner for correction of the entries. Otherwise, no case for interference in the writ petitions is made out.
The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.
September 04, 2012 (RANJIT SINGH )
khurmi JUDGE