IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 13256 of 2011 Date of Decision: July 27, 2011 Meharban …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others. …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: Mr. Ravindra Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be Allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Alok Singh, J. Petitioner has moved an application under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holding (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for correction of revenue record stating that prior to Consolidation Khasra No.155(0-3) Biswa was recorded as Gair Mumkin Turbat, however, CWP No.13256 of 2011 during the consolidation, new khasra number came into existence being 21//6(2-19), Brani, however, in Khasra No. 21//6 (0-6) Marla, theGair Mumkin Turbat Sayed was not entered while petitioner had been in possession in lieu of service by offering obeisance, therefore, a Gair Mumkin Turbat Sayed should be entered in Khasra No 21//6 (0-6) Marla. Learned Financial Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, vide impugned order dated 07.12.2010 has observed that as per revenue record jamabandi, Khasra No. 21//6 2 kanal 19 marlas was entered as Gair Mumkin Abadi and name of Nathu son of Jumla son of Sangharu was entered as owner in self-cultivation possession. He has further observed that after 50 years from the date of consolidation, petitioner has no right to move application under Section 42 of the Act. I have carefully perused the record and have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. On being asked repeatedly, learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to show any document to prove possession of the petitioner over the property in dispute. To maintain application under Section 42 of the Act, petitioner has to show that he has some rights over the property in dispute. It is also settled position of law that long standing entries should not be disturbed lightly. 2 CWP No.13256 of 2011 There is presumption of correctness of long standing entries. Presumption of correctness of long standing entry can only be rebutted by cogent and reliable evidence. There is nothing on record to suggest that petitioner is in possession of the property in dispute or had ever been in possession prior to or at the time and after the consolidation operation. I do not find any material or justification to take contrary view to the view taken by the learned Financial Commissioner. Dismissed. July 27, 2011 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 3