CWP No.16889 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.16889 of 2007 Date of decision: 29.09.2010 Ranjit Singh and others ..... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab through Financial Commissioner (Revenue) Punjab, Chandigarh and others ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr.P.K.Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.C.S.Brar, DAG, Punjab for respondents no.1 to 4. Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with Ms.Prachi Sharma, Advocate for respondent no.5. ***** RAJIVE BHALLA, J.(ORAL) The petitioners pray for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 21.11.2000, 31.05.2007 and 06.08.2007, passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade-cum-Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Kharar, the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala and the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab, Chandigarh, respectively. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, inspected the spot and after finding that the petitioners are in actual possession recorded a Khasra Girdawari, in their favour. The Collector affirmed this order. The Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, had no jurisdiction to reverse these orders. It is further argued that though the decree for permanent injunction, passed in favour of the petitioners was reversed by the first appellate court, the matter is pending in RSA No.822 of 2007, before this court. It is prayed that pending CWP No.16889 of 2007 -2- adjudication of the second appeal, the present petition may be adjourned to await decision of the second appeal. Counsel for the private respondent submits that Jamabandis from the year 1975 record the uninterrupted possession of the private respondent. The Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, had no jurisdiction to record a Khasra Girdawari reflecting the petitioners possession. It is further submitted that the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner have recorded a finding of fact that the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, did not visit the spot before recording the entry in favour of the petitioners. It is also pointed out that as the Additional District Judge, Roopnagar, has held, in his judgment dated 29.09.2006, that the private respondent is in possession of the land in dispute, the writ petition should be dismissed. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned orders and find no reason to hold that the impugned orders suffer from any error. A perusal of the order passed by the Financial Commissioner reveals that the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Ropar, was directed to conduct an administrative inquiry, into the recording of the Khasra Girdawari. The Additional Deputy Commissioner, Ropar, submitted report indicting the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, Majri, guilty of misconduct and therefore, recommended the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade. This fact apart, the jamabandi preceding the Khasra Girdawari in dispute, records the possession of the private respondent. The Commissioner has recorded a positive finding that the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, did not inspect the spot before changing the Khasra Girdawari. Even otherwise, the dispute relating to possession is already pending before CWP No.16889 of 2007 -3- this Court and the final outcome of the petitioners' plea that they are in possession would necessarily depend upon the outcome of RSA No.822 of 2007. A Khasra Girdawari is a mere revenue entry which neither confers nor divests a party of its rights and therefore, cannot be kept in abeyance to await the outcome of the second appeal. If however, the petitioners are held to be in possession, in RSA No.822 of 2007, revenue authorities would be required to correct revenue entries in accordance with any judgment and decree that may be passed. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. 29.09.2010 [ RAJIVE BHALLA ] shamsher JUDGE