Jagga Singh vs Financial Commissioner (Appeals-I) Punjab and Others

Ranjit Singh, J.—The present petition has been filed against the order passed by the Financial Commissioner whereby prayer for correcting the Khasra Girdawari has been declined. It is observed by the Financial Commissioner that Khasra girdawari could not be corrected in anybody''s name as the land in dispute was a public passage. Counsel for the petitioner, however, contends that the Revenue Authorities are bound to follow the judgment passed by the Civil Court and in this regard he has drawn my attention to order passed by the Civil Court annexed with the petition as Annexure P-1. No doubt in this case the suit of the petitioner as plaintiff was decreed with costs and he was held to be co-sharer in the possession of the suit land comprised of Killa No. 15 and splitting of Killa No. 15 was found to be illegal, null and void. Respondent-defendant was restrained from interfering in his possession except in due course of law.

On the other hand counsel for the respondents have drawn my attention to the statement made by four sons of the petitioner before Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Ferozepur which is recorded much after the date of the order passed by the Civil Court on 30.8.2005. Four sons of the petitioners made a statement before Assistant Collector Ist Grade that land comprised in Killa No. 15/1(0-12) situated in Village Machhiwara alias Kamaghar was their land which has been occupied forcibly by the respondents with the police help and that passage is running on the said area. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade visited the spot and the report in this regard was attached with the file. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade found that the land in dispute is a public passage. This fact has also been admitted by both the parties. Ignoring this factual position, the S.D.M. Collector and Commissioner have fairly passed this order whereas the Financial Commissioner has observed on the basis of this that the jamabadi entries in favour of the petitioner could not be corrected it being a passage.

In view of the above, no case for interference in the impugned orders is made out. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.