Daler Singh and Another vs Financial Commissioner Haryana and Others

Rajan Gupta, J.—Petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari seeking quashing of orders dated 24.7.2013, 25.2.2014 and 9.4.2014, Annexures P-6, P-8 & P-9 respectively. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that authorities below have gravely erred in rejecting his prayer for correction in Khasra Girdawari. In view of status quo order granted by the civil court, necessary entry in revenue record was required to be made. He has relied upon a judgment of this court reported as Suhag Wanti v. Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala and others, 2013 Civ CC 100.

Heard.

Petitioners moved an application for correction of Khasra Girdawari from Kharif, 2010-2011 onwards. Application was dismissed by Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Pehowa vide order dated 24.7.2013. Appeal was filed before Collector, Pehowa who decided the same in favour of petitioners. Respondents No. 4 & 5 challenged the order before Commissioner, Ambala Division. Commissioner found the order totally illegal and set-aside the same. The authority observed as follows:--

It is clear from above mentioned facts in this case that Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Collector, Pehowa did not complete the proceedings of service as per provisions of Section 20 of Punjab Land Revenue Act before passing the order under appeal and order under appeal has been passed by ignoring the rules and in hurry, which cannot be expected from the officer on the post of Collector. Thus, concerned officer is liable for disciplinary action. Regarding this it will be proper to initiate separate proceedings on the office level. Order announced.

Findings of the Commissioner were upheld by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana. Aggrieved, petitioners have preferred instant writ petition. Admittedly, they have also preferred a civil suit which is pending before the competent court at Pehowa. In the said case parties have been directed to maintain status quo regarding possession till decision of the suit. Operative part of the order reads as follows:--

Parties are yet to lead evidence to prove their respective pleas. Relevancy of any document cannot be challenged at this stage. In the interest of justice, I deem it fit that status quo qua possession over the suit property be maintained till decision of the present case. However, in view of settled preposition of law that sale of specific portion of the joint land without getting it partitioned will amount to sale of share only, the relief of the plaintiffs for restraining the defendants from alienating the specific portion from the suit land is dismissed. Accordingly, injunction application is hereby disposed of.

Only contention raised before this court is that in view of the status quo order passed by the court, necessary correction in Khasra Girdawari ought to be made. I, however, find no merit in this plea. The Financial Commissioner found that there was no proof to show that petitioners were in cultivating possession of the land. The contention that petitioners were entitled to correction of Khasra Girdawari in view of spot inspection by Patwari, did not find favour with both the authorities i.e. Commissioner and Financial Commissioner.

I have no reason to differ with this view. Admittedly, no notice was issued to respondents No. 4 and 5 at the time of spot inspection. Besides, petitioners have already availed the remedy of civil suit in which they would have ample opportunity to lead evidence in support of their claim. There is, thus, no ground to interfere in writ jurisdiction. The ratio of the judgment in Suhag Wanti''s case (supra) cannot help the petitioners in the present case. There can be no dispute that revenue authorities have jurisdiction to carry out necessary correction in the revenue entries. However, in instant case petitioners have been unable to show that they are in cultivating possession of the land. No merits. Dismissed.