CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.354 OF 2009 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 12, 2009 Karma .....Petitioner VERSUS The Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Haryana Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh and others. ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner claims that land measuring 12 K and 18 M was mutated in his name on the basis of a decree passed by the civil Court on 7.10.1963. Respondent No.5 challenged this decree by filing a civil suit, claiming himself to be in possession of this land in the year 1989. The civil suit was decreed on 19.8.1996, holding respondent No.5 to be owner in possession. The decree in favour of the petitioner dated 7.10.1963 was set-aside. The appeal filed by the petitioner against this judgment and decree was also dismissed on 18.5.1999. Respondent No.5 took a stand that he was dispossessed during the pendency of the appeal and accordingly he was given CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.354 OF 2009 :{ 2 }: relief of possession, holding that he had indeed been so dispossessed by the petitioner during the pendency of the litigation. On 26.8.1999, respondent No.5 filed a suit for damages claiming mesne profits from 1983 to 1999 to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-. Petitioner raised objection for maintainability of a civil suit on the ground of jurisdiction. Respondent No.5 also filed an application for return of the plaint for presenting it before the Court of competent jurisdiction. Civil Court accordingly returned the plaint for presenting the same before competent Forum. Accordingly respondent No.5 filed the petition for damages before Assistant Collector Ist Grade. Assistant Collector Ist Grade has allowed this petition, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.58,230/- i.e. the entire crop from Khariff 1997 to Khariff 1999. The appeal filed by the petitioner before Collector is also dismissed and so also is the fate of the revision and R.O.R filed before the Financial Commissioner. Alleging that the orders passed by the revenue authorities are patently erroneous inasmuch as they did not have the jurisdiction to decide the suit for damages, the present writ petition has been filed. Prayer is that such a suit for damages could have been filed before the Civil Court and not before the revenue authorities. Counsel for the petitioner would also submit that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant, yet the suit for damages claiming mesne profits was allowed. I am unable to accept the submission made by counsel for the petitioner. Initially, respondent No.5 had filed a civil suit, wherein the petitioner raised an objection and accordingly the plaint was returned for presenting before the revenue officials. He can not CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.354 OF 2009 :{ 3 }: now turn around and say that the revenue Courts would not have jurisdiction since there was no relationship of landlord and tenant and that the suit could be decided by the Civil Court. The finding by the Civil Court earlier was also that the petitioner was dispossessed during the pendency of litigation and hence, the respondent No.5 was well within his rights to seek damages, which indeed was done. It was only on the objection raised by the petitioner that respondent No.5 had approached the revenue Courts and hence, the petitioner can not now be heard to make a complaint against the same. No case for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction, thus, is made out. Dismissed. January 12, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE