In this writ petition challenging orders under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, the Court held that revenue officers must follow Civil Court findings. Since the Civil Court found that the respondents were in possession and declined an injunction, the Court dismissed the petition.
Impugned orders upheld; petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
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)
dated 30.11.2006 and14.1.2010, Annexure P-1 and P-3, respectively.
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.
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.”
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.
February 02, 2011 JUDGE
avin
2 issues framed by the court
Whether revenue officers are bound to implement the decision of the Civil Court when a matter regarding land title is pending.
Whether entries in the revenue record/Khasra Girdawri should be made as per facts existing at the time of the revenue officer's visit.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Bachittar Singh
Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab
AJAI LAMBA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
