CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12100 OF 2007 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MAY 08, 2009 Rukmani and others .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. V. K. Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Yashwinder Singh, AAG, Haryana, for the State. Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for respondent Nos.4 to 7. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The prayer of correction of Khasra Girdawari of the petitioners stands declined ultimately by the Financial Commissioner. He has accordingly filed the present writ petition to impugn the said order. The petitioners had purchased this land from respondent Nos.1 to 3. They sought correction of the Khasra Girdawari, which was ordered 6.4.1999. The respondents filed an appeal against this CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12100 OF 2007 :{ 2 }: order which was dismissed on 14.9.1999. Two separate revisions were filed against these orders, which were accepted on 16.1.2002 and orders passed by Assistant Collector and the Collector dated 6.4.1999 and 14.9.1999 were set-aside. The petitioners filed a revision against this order before the Financial Commissioner, which was dismissed on 22.3.2007, against which the present writ petition is filed. The earlier petition filed against the same order was got dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file another one due to some formal defects therein. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that there is a confusion in the impugned order passed by the Financial Commissioner. He submits that even counsel for the respondents has agreed for remand of the case to remove the confusion. The counsel appearing for the respondents, however, does not accept this submission as made by counsel for the petitioners. The counsel for the petitioners thereafter has referred to the impugned order to say that the observations made by the Financial Commissioner may be right but the revenue authorities ultimately are only to see the possession and then make the relevant khasra girdawari entries and are not to see the tile of the property. There does not appear to be any ambiguity or confusion in the impugned order. The claim of the petitioners is based on the sale deed in their favour from one Balbir Singh. Balbir Singh was allotted this land on the ground that it is evacuee property. Civil Court has already held that this property is not an evacuee property and even the appeal and the Regular Second Appeal filed by Union of CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12100 OF 2007 :{ 3 }: India were dismissed by the Lower Appellate Court and this Court. The suit property, thus, can not be taken as a custodian property which could have been auctioned to Balbir Singh and is to be taken as a property of the proprietors. The claim of the petitioners that they are in possession is also not borne out from the record. In fact, the respondents claimed to be in possession of the suit land before it was occupied by river action. He could not show anything in support of his possession. The Financial Commissioner is justified in observing that revenue authorities are not to blindly make the entries of jamabandi. He has rightly observed that people can wrongfully enter into possession of an agriculture land and then seek to be recorded in the khasra girdawari being in possession. Financial Commissioner is justified in observing that the khasra girdawari correction ought to be done in favour of person coming with valid claim. The title of the petitioners over the property being itself in doubt and having been settled against them before the Civil Court, their prayer for correction of khasra girdawari entries has rightly been declined. No case for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction, thus, is made out and the writ petition is dismissed. May 08, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE