C.W.P. No.7545 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.7545 of 2011 Date of Decision : July 6, 2011 Bachna Ram and another ...... Petitioners Versus Financial Commissioner and others ...... Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present : Mr. Vineet Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** Alok Singh, J (Oral) Petitioner has moved one application in the Court of Assistant Collector, Grade-II, Chhacharauli, District Yamuna Nagar for correction of girdawari and requesting the Court to record the possession of the petitioner in the khasra girdawari. Before the Assistant Collector, Grade-II respondents No.3 and 4 had appeared and contested the application moved by the petitioners on the ground that they have filed civil suit seeking permanent injunction against the petitioners and Civil Court has granted injunction in favour of the plaintiffs (respondents herein) restraining the defendants (petitioners herein) not to interfere in the possession of the plaintiffs (respondents herein). Learned Assistant Collector, Grade-II has C.W.P. No.7545 of 2011 2 observed that since civil suit is pending between the parties and competent Civil Court has restrained the present petitioners not to interfere in the possession of the respondents herein, therefore, possession of the petitioners cannot be recorded in the girdawari and decision of the Civil Court is having binding effect, therefore, filing of the application seeking correction be adjourned sine die waiting for the final decision from the Civil Court in a pending suit. Order of the Assistant Collector Grade-II was assailed before the Collector, Yamuna Nagar by the petitioners. Learned Collector vide order dated 8.8.2008 allowed the appeal filed by the petitioners remanding the case to the Assistant Collector directing him to proceed with the correction application after making inspection on the spot. Order of the Collector was challenged by the respondents herein before the learned Commissioner in appeal No.433 which was decided vide order dated 27.2.2009 confirming the order of the Collector remanding the matter to the Assistant Collector. Again respondents No.3 and 4 preferred revision before the Financial Commissioner. Learned Financial Commissioner, having observed that since suit for injunction is pending between the parties and injunction is operating against the petitioners herein not to interfere in the possession of the respondents, therefore, an ultimate judgment of the Civil Court would be having binding effect over the Revenue Authorities, directed that case be adjourned sine die waiting the final decision of the Civil Court. Feeling aggrieved from the order passed by learned Assistant Collector as well as from the order passed by Financial Commissioner, petitioners have approached this Court by way of filing present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This is the settled preposition of law that judgment of the Civil Court has to be implemented by the Revenue Authorities and Revenue C.W.P. No.7545 of 2011 3 Authorities cannot sit over the judgment of the Civil Court. Undisputedly, as on day there is an injunction/restrained order against the petitioners not to interfere in the possession of the respondents, petitioners are seeking correction in the girdawari saying their possession be recorded. Since Civil Court has granted injunction against the petitioners not to interfere in the possession of the respondents finding prima facie possession of the respondents, therefore, Revenue Authorities cannot be given licence to sit over the judgment of the Civil Court and to record the petitioners’ possession on the basis of enquiry on spot inspection. Moreover, record further reveals that injunction order has also been confirmed by the Appellate Court/Additional District Judge. Division Bench of this Court in the case of Tarlok vs. Financial Commissioner, reported in 2004 (3) PLR 355 has also held that Revenue Officer cannot sit over the Civil Court judgment and decree and he has to implement the same in the revenue record. Since Civil Court has not found petitioners in possession, therefore, application of the petitioners requesting the Revenue Authorities to record their possession is not maintainable although the learned Financial Commissioner was kind enough to adjourn the case sine die waiting the final decision of the Civil Court. I find no illegality or error in the order passed by the Assistant Collector as confirmed by Financial Commissioner, therefore, writ petition lacks merit and hence is dismissed in limine. (Alok Singh) Judge July 6, 2011 Anand