IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 5390 of 1992 Date of Decision: 28.04.2011 Ram Asra .... Petitioner Versus Director of Land Records, Punjab, Jallandhar and another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Mr. Ashok Singla, Advocate for the petitioner 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This petition has been filed challenging the order (Annexure P-1) whereby a correction was ordered by the Addl. Director Consolidation, Punjab under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948. An application was made by respondent No. 2 claiming that the predecessor-in-interest (Santoo–Mama of the petitioner) was originally 1/6th share holder of the joint land. He had sold his share to one Devi Chand but at the time of repartition, the factum of the sale was not recorded and the name of Santoo continued to be reflected in the revenue record and thus he claimed for correction of the same. In the reply to the statement filed on behalf of the petitioner all legal pleas were taken but the factum of the sale was not denied. The Addl. Director Consolidation, Punjab allowed the application leading to the filing of the present petition. In the present petition a specific plea was taken that Santoo had made no sale of C.W.P. No. 5390 of 1992 2 the land and it was pleaded that no document of sale had been placed on record. In the written statement filed in the writ petition, respondent No. 2 took a plea that since he was not vendee, he had no knowledge about the document of sale but that the sale was reflected in the year 1956-57 as Annexure R-1/1. No replication has been filed to this written statement. A perusal of the said Jamabandi was that Santoo has sold his share in the joint land to Devi Chand. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that once the name of Santoo continued to be reflected in the subsequent Jamabandis, petition under Section 42 of the Act would not lie and the only remedy available would have to file a civil suit. He has also argued that under Section 42 of the Act having been filed after 25 years was hopelessly time barred. In my considered opinion, once the Jamabandi of the year 1956-57 does disclose a transaction of sale, the subsequent revenue record could not have contained the name of Santoo. As far as the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the question of the title is concerned of course is open to the petitioner to file a proper civil suit and show that the allegation of the sale is false and protect his title and possession. As far as correction of this mistake is concerned, I find no reason to interfere in the order of the Addl. Director Consolidation, Punjab. Petition is dismissed. (AJAY TEWARI) 28.04.2011 JUDGE reena