R.S.A. No. 1917 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1917 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 07.05.2009 Baljit Singh ....appellant versus Amrik Singh and others ....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Vikram S. Punia, Advocate, for the appellant. *** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This regular second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff/appellant to challenge the dismissal of his suit by the learned lower appellate Court. The plaintiff/appellant brought a suit for declaration to challenge the fard badar, and sought injunction against the defendant/respondents from interfering in his peaceful possession. The case set up by the plaintiff/appellant was, that though the plaintiff was recorded as owner in possession of the property, however, by way of fard badar entries were changed by the Deputy Commissioner without notice to the plaintiff. The said change was effected on an application moved by the defendant/respondents. The learned trial Court held, that the fard badar was not R.S.A. No. 1917 of 2009 (O&M) -2- correctly carried out and, therefore, suit qua declaration to challenge the change in the revenue record was allowed, but relief of injunction was declined. In appeal, the learned lower appellate Court while affirming the finding of the learned trial Court holding that it was the defendant/respondents who were in possession and, therefore, not entitled to injunction. The suit was dismissed in toto, by holding that change by way of fard badar was as per civil court decree. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contends, that the following substantial question of law arises for consideration by this Court: - "Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower appellate Court is contrary to the settled law that the revenue authorities cannot order correction of revenue entries by way of fard badar?" In support of the substantial question of law, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned lower appellate Court erred in reversing the judgment of the learned trial Court holding that the change in revenue entries by fard badar could only be corrected by civil Court and not the revenue authorities. It was, thus, contended that the order of change in revenue entries was without jurisdiction and, therefore, the decree of the learned trial Court deserved to be restored. The plea raised by the learned counsel for the appellant deserves to be rejected. The reason for change of fard badar was that, as per civil court decree, the defendant/respondents were given the land with possession. The learned Courts below, therefore, recorded a R.S.A. No. 1917 of 2009 (O&M) -3- concurrent finding of fact, that it was the defendant/respondents who were in possession of the property under the civil court decree. It is well established law that the revenue Court/authorities are bound by the judgment and decree passed by the civil Court. The correction of revenue record in terms of civil court decree, therefore, could not be said to be without jurisdiction, as contended. The substantial question of law in the facts and circumstances of the present case is, therefore, answered against the appellant. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge May 07, 2009 R.S.