CWP No.18965 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CWP No.18965 of 2010 Date of decision : 9.5.2011 Roshandeen ........Petitioner Vs. Financial Commissioner, (Revenue) Haryana, Chandigarh and others ......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present:- Mr.Bhag Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner --- PERMOD KOHLI, J (Oral) : The petitioner filed an application for correction of the Khasra Girdawari before the Assistant Collector Grade II, Bilaspur on 10.10.2005 in respect of land measuring 5 kanals comprised of Khewat No.49 Khatoni No.196, Khasra No.16/16/1, situated at Revenue Estate of Udham Garh, Sub Tehsil Sadhaura, District Yamuna Nagar. The Assistant Collector Grade II allowed the application for correction of Khasra Girdawari in favour of the petitioner from 2005 vide order dated 21.4.2008 (Annexure P-1). Respondent No.5 challenged the order of the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, in appeal before the Collector, who dismissed the same vide order dated 5.2.2009. Respondent No.5 filed a revision before the Commissioner, Ambala Division. This revision was also dismissed vide order dated 31.7.2009. Aggrieved of the order of the authorities, respondent No.5 again filed a revision under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana being ROR No.820 of 2008. CWP No.18965 of 2010 -2- The Financial Commissioner vide his impugned order dated 14.7.2010 has allowed the revision filed by respondent No.5 and set aside the orders passed by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Collector and Commissioner respectively. It is against this order that the present writ petition has been filed. The Financial Commissioner while setting aside the order of the authorities below held that dispute regarding possession is pending before the Civil Court and Civil Court has issued an interim injunction for protection of the possession of Ram Chander, who was Review petitioner before the Financial Commissioner. It has also been notice that entries with regard to cultivation have already been entered in jamabandi and thus, the Assistant Collector was not competent to change the entries on the application of the writ petitioner merely on the basis of spot inspection. It has also been noticed by the Financial Commissioner that when the application was made by Roshandeen, the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade did not afford any opportunity to respondent No.5, herein for leading evidence and he was told that opportunity would be provided after spot inspection for which a date was fixed. However, the Assistant Collector did not inspect the spot on that date and told the Revision petitioner that he would be intimated the date but without intimating any date the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade visited the spot in absence of the revision petitioner and proceeded ex parte. It has also been noticed that even the Collector proceeded ex parte and passed the order in appeal in the absence of the counsel for the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner himself has admitted in the writ petition that respondent No.5 filed a civil suit in the Civil Court. In the said suit he also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC, which was allowed and CWP No.18965 of 2010 -3- an appeal preferred there against was also dismissed. The petitioner, however, has approached the High Court in revision but the High Court has passed the order regarding status quo only. In view of these factual averments made in the present writ petition, the order of the Financial Commissioner cannot be faulted with. This petition, thus, deserves dismissal. Ordered accordingly. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 9.5.2011 akm