In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... C.W.P. No.20081 of 2008 ..... Date of decision:10.8.2009 Madan Lal .....Petitioner v. Financial Commissioner (Appeals-I), Punjab and others .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. H.P.S. Ghuman, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... S.S. Saron, J. This petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 11.2.1991 (Annexure-P.8) passed by the Collector, Nabha, the order dated 26.8.2004 (Annexure-P.9) passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala (respondent No.2) and the order dated 10.7.2008 (Annexure-P.10) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab (Appeals-I) (respondent No.1) and for upholding the order dated 24.1.1989 (Annexure- P.3) passed by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Nabha. The case of the petitioner is that in terms of the order dated 24.1.1989 (Annexure-P.3) passed by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Nabha, Khasra Girdawri of land measuring 1 Kanal 16 Marlas out of land measuring 16 Kanals 5 Marlas comprised in Khasra No.508 in the revenue estate of Village Nabha, Tehsil, Nabha, District Patiala was entered in his favour from Kharif 1988 as `forcible possession'. However, it is submitted C.W.P. No.20081 of 2008 [2] that the Collector Nabha vide his order dated 11.2.1991 (Annexure-P.8) erred in setting aside the said order on an appeal filed by the Gaushala Committee (respondent No.3). The petitioner aggrieved against the order of the Collector filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala (respondent No.2) which has been dismissed on 26.8.2004 (Annexure-P.9). The further revision petition of the petitioner before the Financial Commissioner (Appeals-I), Punjab has been dismissed vide order dated 10.7.2008 (Annexure-P.10). Aggrieved against the same the petitioner has filed the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Collector, the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala and the Financial Commissioner (Appeals-I), have gravely erred in not considering the order dated 21.10.1988 (Annexure-P.3) passed by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Nabha which has been passed after the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Nabha himself visited the spot and carried out spot inspection and an inquiry; besides, statements of witnesses were recorded and thereafter he had come to the clear conclusion that land measuring 1 Kanal 16 Marlas out of land measuring 16 Kanals 5 Marlas comprised in Khasra No.508 was under `forcible occupation' of the petitioner. It is submitted that the said evidence and material has not been considered. It is further submitted that the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals-I) has gravely erred in referring to the Civil Court order which relates to a different land. Besides, Regular Second Appeal regarding the same is, in any case, pending in this Court. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, find no merit in the same. It may be noticed that the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals-I) C.W.P. No.20081 of 2008 [3] (respondent No.1) in his order dated 10.7.2008 (Annexure-P.10) has observed that the Gaushala Committee was in possession of the property which otherwise was a government property. The present petitioner had no right or interest in the property. He had forcibly occupied the land and cultivated the same. Besides, he had lost his case in the Civil Court and even at the level of the High Court. Accordingly, it was held that the plea of the petitioner that the petitioner was in actual possession of the land and accordingly Khasra Girdawri should be corrected in his name cannot be accepted. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed. Shri H.P.S. Ghuman, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, sought to contend that the order of the Civil Court relates to a different land. He has adverted to the plaint dated 29.1.1986 (Annexure-P.13) and the judgment of the Civil Court dated 25.5.1988 (Annexure-P.14). A perusal of the plaint (Annexure-P.13) shows that the same relates to a suit for permanent injunction in respect of land comprised in Khasra No.508 Min. (1-0). The said suit had been filed by the petitioner against members of the Gaushala Committee and also the Gaushala Committee, Nabha. The plaintiff (petitioner) claimed that he along with proforma defendants No.4 and 5 were owners in possession of the suit property for the last more than 35 years. Besides, the Gaushala Committee and its members had no concern whatsoever with the suit property and they had threatened to dispossess the plaintiff and proforma-defendants No.4 and 5 illegally and forcibly. The learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Nabha vide judgment and decree dated 25.5.1988 (Annexure-P.14) dismissed the said suit for injunction. It was inter alia observed that the evidence adduced by the defendants showed that Gaushala was in possession of the suit land. It C.W.P. No.20081 of 2008 [4] was also observed that the plaintiff had sought the relief of permanent injunction on the basis of ownership and possession but it was difficult to hold him owner in possession of the suit land and that being so he could not be held entitled for the relief of injunction. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed vide judgment dated 3.9.1992 (Annexure-P.15) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala. It was observed that from the statement of the petitioner recorded before framing of issues it was admitted that the land comprised in Khasra No.508 Min. measuring 1 Kanals had been in dispute previously. The petitioner and his brother had filed a suit for possession which was decided in their favour but in appeal the said suit was dismissed by the District Judge on 20.4.1960. Appeal against the same was dismissed by the High Court on 8.9.1991. This, it was observed, left no doubt about the identity of the suit property; besides the plaintiff had filed suit for possession earlier, which impliedly admitted that he was not in possession of the suit land. Against the said judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala on 3.9.1992 (Annexure-P.15), the petitioner has filed RSA No.1984 of 1992 in which notice of motion was issued on 14.10.1992 (Annexure-P.16) and status quo was ordered to be maintained regarding possession. It may be noticed that in the judgment dated 25.5.1988 (Annexure-P.14) and judgment dated 3.9.1992 (Annexure-P.15) the stand of the petitioner that he was in possession of the land measuring 1 Kanal in Khasra No.508 Min. was not accepted. The stand of the learned counsel, however, is that land measuring 1 Kanal in Khasra No.508 Min. is separate from the land measuring 1 Kanal 16 Marlas which is also part of Khasra No.508 Min. The revenue records that have been placed on record have C.W.P. No.20081 of 2008 [5] been perused. The Jamabandi for the year 1985-86 (Annexure-P.4) relates to the land comprised in Khasra No.508 Min. measuring 1 Kanal. The ownership is that of Punjab Government. Madan Lal (petitioner) etc. are recorded in possession in the column of cultivation as `Gair Marusis'. In the Jamabandi for the year 1990-91 (Annexure-P.5) the land comprised in Khasra No.508 Min. measuring 2 Kanals 16 Marlas is recorded as the ownership of the Punjab Government. The possession is recorded of Madan Lal (petitioner) as `Gair Marusi'. In the Khasra Girdawris for the period from 1976-77 to 1980-81 (Annexure-P.6) the land comprised in Khasra No.508 relating to land measuring 1 Kanal is recorded as ownership of Punjab Government and Madan Lal (petitioner) etc. are recorded in cultivating possession as `Gair Marusis'. In the Khasra Girdawri for the period from 1986-87 to 1990-91 (Annexure-P.7) the position in respect of the land comprised in Khasra No.508 Min. (1-0) is the same till Rabi 1988- 89. Thereafter, under column No.14 of Khasra Girdawri (Annexure-P.7) correction has been ordered by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Nabha vide Report No.427 dated 30.1.1989 from Kharif crop 1989 of an area of 1 Kanal 16 Marlas in favour of Madan Lal (petitioner). However, the area of the land in column No.4 in respect of area it is mentioned as 1 Kanal comprised in Khasra No.508 Min. Therefore, it may be noticed that the said correction is on the basis of the order dated 24.1.1989 (Annexure-P.3), which has been set aside. In fact the correction made in column No.14 in the Khasra Girdawri of 1988-89 (Annexure-P.7) in Khasra No.508 Min. would mean that the dispute relates to Khasra No.508 Min. alone and to no other land as is sought to be contended by the learned counsel for the C.W.P. No.20081 of 2008 [6] petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, submitted that in terms of the Jamabandi for the year 1991 (Annexure-P.5), the petitioner is recorded in possession of land measuring 2 Kanals 16 Marlas which according to him means that the petitioner in addition to 1 Kanal land in his possession, he is in possession of 1 Kanal 16 Marlas of more land. However, the learned counsel has not been able to show as to how the petitioner came in possession of the said further land and whether the additions and corrections made by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Nabha vide order dated 24.1.1989 (Annexure-P.3) also pertains to the said land measuring 1 Kanal 16 Marlas comprised in Khasra No.508 Min. It is quite apparent that the petitioner is basing his claim only on the observations of the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade as recorded in his order dated 24.1.1989 (Annexure-P.3), which in any case has been set aside. Otherwise there is nothing to establish his possession or as to what is the foundation or basis of the same. Besides, the Civil Court has categorically held that the petitioner is not in possession. Therefore, the revenue authorities have rightly followed the order of the Civil Court, which they are even otherwise bound to follow under the law. In the circumstances, the present petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. August 10, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp* NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not:Yes/No