IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No. 1205 of 2010 ( O&M ) DATE OF DECISION : 25.02.2011 Madan Lal .... APPELLANT Versus Financial Commissioner, Punjab Appeals-I and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL Present: Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. Madan Lal, who was the petitioner in CWP No. 20081 of 2008, has filed the instant Letters Patent Appeal against the order dated 10.8.2009, passed by the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid petition, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant for quashing the orders dated 11.2.1991 (Annexure P-8); 26.8.2004 (Annexure P-9); and 10.7.2008 (Annexure P- 10), passed by the Collector, Nabha; the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala; and the Financial Commissioner, Appeals-I, Punjab, has been dismissed. The issue in this case pertains to the entry of khasra girdawari in favour of the appellant regarding the land measuring 1 Kanal 16 Marlas, LPA No. 1205 of 2010 -2- out of the land measuring 16 Kanals 5 Marlas, comprised in khasra No. 508 in the revenue estate of village Nabha, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala. The appellant claims himself to be in physical possession of the said land, though undisputedly the same is owned by the Government. At the initial stage, the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Nabha, after visiting the spot, on the basis of forcible possession of the appellant over the said land from Kharif 1988, vide his order dated 24.1.1989 (Annexure P-3) ordered to enter mutation of the said land in favour of the appellant. The said order was passed on the basis of statements of Shri Bhader Lal Ahluwalia, President, Gaushala, Nabha, and one Tarlok Nath Batta, Member Gaushala, Nabha, who stated that the appellant was in physical possession of the said land. In appeal, filed by the Gaushala Committee, the Collector, Nabha, vide his order dated 11.2.1991 (Annexure P-8) set aside the said order of the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, while coming to the conclusion that the appellant has no connection with the disputed land and the civil suit filed by the appellant claiming possession of the said land was dismissed, and his possession over the disputed land was not accepted by the civil court. The said order was upheld by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala and the Financial Commissioner, Appeals-I, Punjab, vide orders dated 26.8.2004 (Annexure P-9) and 10.7.2008 (Annexure P-10), respectively. The writ petition, filed by the appellant, challenging the aforesaid orders, has also been dismissed. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone LPA No. 1205 of 2010 -3- through the impugned order as well as the aforesaid orders, passed by the revenue authorities. A perusal of the impugned order, passed by the learned Single Judge, reveals that it has been found that the civil court has categorically found that the appellant was not in possession of the land in dispute, therefore, the revenue authorities, while following the order of the civil court, have rightly decided the case regarding entry in the khasra girdawari against the appellant. In this appeal, learned counsel for the appellant has raised the same contention, which was raised by the appellant before the learned Single Judge, to the effect that the property in dispute before the civil court was different. The learned Single Judge, while referring to the revenue record and the admitted fact that the property in dispute in the civil suit and the land involved in the present petition are comprised in khasra No. 508, has rejected the contention of the appellant, while coming to the conclusion that the property in dispute in the civil suit and the land involved in the instant writ petition is the same. We do not find any illegality or perversity in the said finding of fact. On a specific question, learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute the fact that the appellant has no right or interest in the land in dispute, except that he claims himself to be in forcible possession of the same. In our opinion, merely because the appellant, who has no right or interest in the disputed land, which undisputedly belongs to the Government and is in possession of the Gaushala Committee, Nabha, LPA No. 1205 of 2010 -4- had forcibly occupied the same at one stage, khasra girdawari of the same cannot be corrected in his name. No merit. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE February 25, 2011 ( M. JEYAPAUL ) ndj JUDGE