CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2417 of 1991 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2417 of 1991 DATE OF DECISION: JULY 11, 2011 Gulzar Singh ..Petitioner VERSUS The State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH PRESENT: Mr. IPS Doabia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. A.S. Jattana, Addl. AG, Punjab, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The land measuring 30 kanals 1 marla situated in Village Boh, Tehsil and Distt. Kapurthala was allotted to respondent No.4/ Kashmir Singh by the Tehsildar (Sales), Kapurthala vide order dated 31.5.1979. This order was challenged by the petitioner in a revision petition before the Chief Sales Commissioner, Kapurthala, which was dismissed on 2.8.1988. The petitioner, accordingly, approached the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, against the said order. The impugned orders were passed on the ground that the petitioner had not led any evidence to show that he was ever in the possession of the land. The said stand of the petitioner was refuted by the respondents by holding that 1 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2417 of 1991 Kashmir Singh-respondent No.4 was in possession of the land in dispute as per the entries in the revenue record. The conveyance deed was also issued by the Tehsildar Sales on 22.6.1982 after getting deposited the cost of the land. These aspects were considered by the Commissioner and after perusing the record it was held that Kashmir Singh was found mentioned as Mazara Ghair Marusi in cultivation column. The Commissioner, accordingly, found that the Tehsildar Sales was right in transferring the suit land in favour of Kashmir Singh vide order dated 31.5.1979 on the basis of entries in the revenue record. The petitioner claims to be in possession of the land from 1981, whereas the land has already been allotted to Kashmir Singh in the year 1979. The Commissioner found that the petitioner had not led any evidence to show as to how he came in possession of the suit land. The Civil Court’s judgment, which was referred to in the arguments, was not placed before the Commissioner. The Commissioner, accordingly, rejected the claim of the petitioner. Since the petitioner had not led any evidence before the Commissioner or before any authority, he cannot be permitted to lead any additional evidence at this belated stage. Otherwise, also there is no any request made for permitting the petitioner to lead any additional evidence. The order passed by the Commissioner, apparently, is fully justified on the basis of material on record. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. July 11, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH) monika JUDGE 2