IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.11350 of 2010 Date of Decision: February 02, 2011 Bachittar Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Naveen Batra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr. R.S. Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 to 4. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. In this civil writ petition, challenge is to Orders dated 30.11.2006 and14.1.2010, Annexure P-1 and P-3, respectively. 2. Perusal of impugned order, Annexure P-3, indicates that under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, having taken note of the fact that Civil Court is seized of the matter, it has been held that revenue officers are bound to implement the decision of the Civil Court. In the case in hand, the matter regarding title of land is already pending in the CWP No.11350 of 2010 [2] Civil Court. Accordingly, the appeal has been accepted and order of the Commissioner has been set aside. Orders passed by the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, have been upheld. 3. The order passed by the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, has been placed on record by private respondents, with the written statement as Annexure R-2/3. The said authority has decided that during the pendency of the case in Civil Court, the case is consigned to record room. The Court would comply with the order passed by the Civil Court. 4. When the matter was heard on 19.1.2011, the following order was passed:- “Perusal of Annexure R2/1 indicates that Waryam Chand, father of the petitioner filed a suit for declaration claiming himself to be owner of land that is subject matter of this writ petition. Purportedly, the agreement entered into by Waryam Singh has been challenged by way of suit. An application under order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC was filed by Waryam Singh which however has been allowed in part while saying that nature of land be not changed and land be not alienated. However, while considering the issue of possession of the land, following has been said:- “Since the possession has already undergone change, therefore, the relief of injunction qua interference in the suit land by the defendants is not grantable to the plaintiff as the defendants have since entered in possession of the suit land. Application qua that relief therefore is declined.” The issue raised in the writ petition is in regard to entries in revenue record/ Khasra Girdawri. In the face of finding recorded by the Civil Court, as extracted above, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for time. Adjourned to 2.2.2011.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner agrees to the CWP No.11350 of 2010 [3] proposition that revenue authorities are required to obey the orders of the Civil Court. In an application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC, the Civil Court has already found the private respondents to be in possession. Learned counsel further states that direction be issued to the revenue authorities to visit the spot and thereafter, make entries in revenue record as per facts in existence at this juncture. 6. I am of the view that evidence is sought to be created. The petitioner had ample opportunity before the Civil Court to plead his case. The Civil Court, however, has recorded a finding in regard to the possession against the petitioner. 9. In view of the above, impugned orders passed by the authorities are legally tenable. 10. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) February 02, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?