IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.13946 of 2011 Date of Decision: August 03, 2011 Karnail Singh ...Petitioner Versus Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 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? Present: Mr.Munish Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala on 26.4.2011 upholding the order passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Ludhiana (West). This is a story of long drawn litigation. The petitioner claims his right on the basis of mortgage and a sale deed. Mutation was entered on that basis on 20.12.2008. The petitioner filed a civil suit, where status-quo order was passed. Still, the petitioner went in appeal against this order when the Appellate Court remanded this case back to the trial Court for passing a fresh order. The respondents herein had filed a revision and this court has directed the trial Court to give a specific finding in regard to possession. In the meantime, Assistant Collector was also seized of the matter and finding that land has been leased out by Mahavir Singh and Harnek Singh, recorded the entries in favour of Harnek Singh. The petitioner filed an appeal, which was allowed by the Collector. Commissioner, however, through the impugned order, has upheld the order passed by the Assistant Collector. It is noticed that Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Ludhiana had visited the spot and has corrected the Girdawari in the name of the respondents on 13.5.2010. Against this order, the petitioner had filed an appeal, which was disposed of with a direction to maintain status-quo. This order was challenged by the respondents before the Commissioner, whereby the impugned order has been passed. The view taken by the Commissioner that Assistant Collector has rightly carried out correction after visiting the spot and ascertaining the person in possession from the respectable persons of the village cannot be faulted in any manner. It is rightly observed that the Khasra Girdawaries are done on the basis of spot report. It has also been observed that the civil court order, which was taken in view by the Collector, was in existence. The observation made by the Commissioner that inference can be drawn that the petitioner was not in possession from the action of the petitioner in filing the appeal against status-quo order passed by the civil court, is not misplaced and appears justified. There is no cause made out for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Dismissed. August 03, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE