C.W.P.No.17355 of 2011. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 17355 of 2011 Date of Decision: September 15,2011 M/s Rajshri Infotech Pvt.Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM; HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Rajiv Kataria, Advocate for the petitioner. Alok Singh, J (Oral) Mr.Kataria, learned cousel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that Halqa Patwari-Revenue Officers/officials should have made entry in the khasra girdawari strictly in accordance with the interim order passed by Sh.B.K.Sharma, Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Khanna dated 16.10.2010. Mr.Kataria has further argued that subject matter before the Additional Civil Judge was different residential plot numbers, commercial plots and shops as mentioned in the agreement to sell (Annexure P/1). He further states that Revenue Authorities, while C.W.P.No.17355 of 2011. 2 making entry about the interim order passed by the Additional Civil Judge, should have mentioned only the plot numbers. Mr.Kataria, learned counsel for the petitioner on being asked how these plots are connected with the khasra numbers mentioned in the copy of jamabandi (Annexure P/4), has replied that a proposed colony was got sanctioned over the khasra numbers mentioned in the jamabandi (Annexure P/4). Different proposed residential plots and commercial plots were given in the proposed colony. On being asked as to how Mr.Kataria will say that these plot numbers are part of which khasra number, he has replied that it was the duty of the Patwari to find out. In the opinion of this Court ,in the revenue record ,entry is to be made about the khasra number not regarding the plot numbers which are proposed plot numbers in the proposed residential plots, which was got sanctioned. So, I do not find any illegality or ambiguity in the impugned order. Petition is dismissed. However, it is clarified that Revenue Authorities shall carry out ultimate correction in the record as per the final verdict in the civil suit. (Alok Singh) September 15, 2011 Judge BB