IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No. 1985 of 2011 ( O&M ) DATE OF DECISION : 15.11.2011 Pritam Singh .... APPELLANT Versus State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present: Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate, for the appellant. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. ( Oral ) Pritam Singh, who was respondent No.4 in Civil Writ Petition No. 18319 of 2011, has filed this Letters Patent Appeal against the order dated September 29, 2011, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby while dismissing the writ petition, filed by Surjeet Singh (respondent No.5 herein), the following observations have been made with regard to the alleged change of khasra girdawari in favour of the appellant : “This is the settled position of law that any observation, finding or decision in a summary proceeding of mutation and correction of the revenue entries shall not be taken as res- judicata in a regular civil suit between the parties. Since civil suit is pending between the parties pertaining to the same land, therefore, parties can agitate their respective rights before the LPA No. 1985 of 2011 -2- competent Civil Court hearing the civil suit filed by respondent No.4. Civil suit shall be decided at its own merit in accordance with law without being prejudiced from any entry or any decision, finding or observation in the impugned proceedings. Any finding, decision or observation in the impugned order shall not be taken as res-judicata.” We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the impugned order. In our opinion, the said observations made by the learned Single Judge with regard to the change in the khasra girdawari are necessary, in the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly when the appellant has filed a suit for pre-emption on the basis of the said entry. In this case, appellant moved an application (Annexure P-2) for change in khasra girdawari pertaining to khasra No. 72//1/2 (6-0) stating therein that actually he is in possession of the said khasra number as a tenant. Vide order dated 30.6.2006 (Annexure P-3), the said application was allowed ex- parte. Against the said order, Parakeet Green Forests Limited, Chandigarh (vendor of respondent No.4) filed an appeal. In the meanwhile, on the basis of the corrected revenue entry, the appellant filed a civil suit for pre- emption on the ground that he is a tenant on the land in question. The said civil suit is still pending. In order to succeed in the said suit, it is incumbent upon the appellant to prove his tenancy on the said khasra number. When this fact was brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge, the aforesaid observations were made in the impugned order, so that on the revenue entry made in a proceeding, which is summary in nature, total reliance is not LPA No. 1985 of 2011 -3- made, and the appellant has to establish his tenancy rights on the land, by leading some other evidence in the civil suit. Since the khasra girdawari proceedings were the summary proceedings and the findings recorded therein are not binding, therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly observed that the revenue entries made in the record will not operate as res judicata in the regular civil suit. We do not find any illegality in the said observations. No merits. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE November 15, 2011 ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) ndj JUDGE