IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.13813 of 2009 Date of Decision: 04.09.2009 Kirpal Kaur Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH Present: Mr.Vijay Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner ….. Jasbir Singh, J.(Oral) This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to lay challenge to an order dated 20.5.2009 (P1), vide which, prayer of the petitioner, to summon office kanungo and a Patwari, with record, was declined. It is apparent from the records that the petitioner’s reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is pending for adjudication before the Court below. In that case, the petitioner moved an application on 21.2.2007 (P2), with the following prayer:- “1) Office Kanungo, Kharar, District Mohali. He should bring with him the Missal Haqiat for the year 1958-59 of the land owned and possessed by Devinder Singh s/o Shri Brij Chand Singh s/o Shri Bhagwan Singh situated in Sohana. He should also bring with him Naksha Haqdarbar and Resolutions passed by the Consolidation Authorities relating to above land. Civil Writ Petition No.13813 of 2009 2) Revenue Patwari, Sohana, Tehsil Mohali. He should bring with him the Missal Haqiat for the year 1958-59 of the land owned and possessed by Devinder Singh s/o Shri Brij Chand Singh s/o Shri Bhagwan Singh situated in Sohana. He should also bring with him Naksha Haqdarbar and sesolutions passed by the Consolidation Authorities relating to above land.” Beyond this, in that application, no reason has been given, as to why presence of the revenue officer is necessary in Court. The Court below dismissed application of the petitioner. Perusal of order passed by the Court below indicates that the above said application was got dismissed as withdrawn by the petitioner on 25.3.2009, however, subsequent thereto, her counsel appeared and made a statement that the application be decided on merits. Order was recalled and application was heard on merits. It was again dismissed by observing as under:- “So far as the application dated 21.2.2007 is concerned, through this application, the applicant petitioner wants to summon the office Kanungo Kharar and Revenue Patwari Sohana alongwith the revenue record for the year 1958-59 of the land land owned and possessed by Devinder Singh son of Brij Chand Singh. However, it has not been mentioned in the application, for what purpose the presence of the Revenue officials is required. The certified copies of the revenue record, are perse admissible. Therefore, the certified copies of the same record can be proved and produced. Even otherwise Part B-1 of Chapter 5, Volume-I of Rules and Orders of 2 Civil Writ Petition No.13813 of 2009 Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, provides that the Patwaris should not be summoned unless it is absolutely necessary and that before summoning the Patwari as a witness, the Court should see that every application for the revenue record or an exerpt prepared by the Kanungo would not be sufficient and why the attendance of the Patwari is essential. When the petitioner was asked as to why he does not produce certified copies of revenue record mentioned in the application, then he did not give any satisfactory reply.” This Court feels that the order passed is perfectly justified. In the application, no reason has been given as to why presence of the revenues officer was necessary. In the prayer clause, it has been stated that the officer be summoned and he should bring with him Missal Haqiat for the year 1958-1959 of the land owned and possessed by Devinder Singh son of Brij Chand, situated in village Sohana. The officer should also bring Naksha Haqdarbar and resolutions passed by the consolidation authorities relating to the above said land. Further prayer is to summon the Patwari to bring those very documents, as mentioned above. This Court feels that all the documents are public documents. If the petitioner wishes, she may get certified copies of those documents and then place on record. It is not coming out from the records, that the petitioner has ever made any application to get copies of the documents, mentioned above. In view of that, there is no necessity to summon any officer as prayed. Dismissed. 04.09.2009 (Jasbir Singh) gk Judge 3 Civil Writ Petition No.13813 of 2009 4