Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gunjeet Singh And Others vs Anurag Verma And Others on 12 January, 2026
CM-25624
25624-CII-2025
COCP-2660
2660-2025 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
101+219 CM--25624-CII-2025 in/and
COCP
COCP-2660-2025 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 12.01.2026
Gunjeet Singh and others .... Petitioners
Versus
Anurag Verma and others .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present: - Mr. Amit Jhanji, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Priyanka Kansal and Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocates
for the petitioners.
Mr. Saurav Verma, Addl. A.G., Punjab with
Mr. Manmeet Singh Teji, AAG, Punjab assisted by
Ms. Swapandeep Kaur, Tehsildar, Patran, Patiala.
Mr. Manish Kumar Singla, Advocate
for applicant (in CM-11255-CII
CII-2025).
NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
CM-25624 25624-CII-2025 Prayer in this application filed under Section 151 CPC is for placing on record replication to the reply filed by respondent No. 2 and for placing on record true translated copy of Annexure P P-11.
Heard.
Application is allowed, as prayed for. Replication to the reply filed by respondent No. 2 as well as true translated copy of Jamabandi for the year 2019 2019-2020 (Annexure P-
1 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 15-01-2026 02:45:20 :::
CM-25624
25624-CII-2025
COCP-2660
2660-2025 (O&M) -2-
11) filed along with the application are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.
COCP-2660 2660-2025 (O&M)
1. Synopsis along with compendium of judgments filed by learned counsel for the State in Court is taken on record.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners etitioners are legal heirs of Rachhpal Kaur daughter of Bhagwant S Singh. The petitioners and other legall heirs of Bhagwant Bhagwan Singh had filed Civil Suit for declaration. The said Civil Suit was partly decreed in favour of the petitioners by the Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 07.11.1983 07.11.1983. The First Appellate Court vide judgment dated 15.12.1986 (Annexure AnnexureP-3) had also upheld the judgment dated 07.11.1983. This Court vide judgment dated 25.03.1992 (AnnexureP-4); and the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 06.04.1993 had dismissed the respective appeals filed by the respondent-State respondent of Punjab thereby upholding the decree in favour of the petitioners.
etitioners.
3. The petitioners thereafter approach approached the Executing Court for implementation of Decree in their favour favour; and the same was partly allowed vide judgment dated 08.08.2014 (Annexure P-1) directing the revenue authorities to enter the name of the petitioners etitioners in the column of ownership within a period of 2 months. The same has been upheld by the Executing First Appellate Court vide judgment dated 19.04.2017 AnnexureP-5). The same has also been upheld by this Court vide (Annexure judgment dated 21.02.2024 (AnnexureP P-2) passed in Civil Revision 2 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 15-01-2026 02:45:21 ::: CM-25624 25624-CII-2025 COCP-2660 2660-2025 (O&M) -3- 2017 and other connected matters whereby in para No. 17 it No. 4060-2017 was directed as under:-
"17. Despite espite the repetition, it necessitates explicit mention that all the observations made by the Court while deciding the objection petitions filed by the objectors shall not be binding in the subsequent proceedings except for the relevant issues. The decree holders are only entitled to get the entries in the ownership column of the revenue record corrected in their favour as per the judgment and ddecreeecree passed by the Trial Court."
4. Ld. Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that even after such clear and binding directions, the State authorities are deliberately not complying with the judgment passed in the year 1983 although 40 years have passed;
passed thereby committing willful disobedience of the decree and orders passed by the Hon'ble Courts.
5. Ld. Counsel nsel for the respondents controvert controverts submissions on behalf of the petitioners and submits that name names of the petitioners have been duly incorporated in the Jamabandi for the year 2019 2019-2020 2020 (Annexure P-11), P , as owners of the suit property.
6. Ld. Senior Counsel for the petitioners rebuts the submissions of the respondents and submits that this Court in Civil Revision had categorically directed that 'despite the repetition, it necessitates explicit mention that all the observations made by the Court while deciding the objection petitions filed by the objectors shall not be binding in the subsequent proceedings except for the relevant issues. The decree holders are only entitled to get the entries in the ownership column of the revenue record corrected in their their favour as per the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court'.
Court' However, the respondents are eespousing the cause of the 3 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 15-01-2026 02:45:21 ::: CM-25624 25624-CII-2025 COCP-2660 2660-2025 (O&M) -4- objectors, and have incorrectly recorded in the Rapat Entry No. 97 at page 18-B B of the true translated copy of Jamabandi for the yyear 2019-2020 2020 (Annexure P-11 P with CM-25624-CII-2025), 2025), as follows:
follows:-
"Vide Rapat no.: 97, Court order dated 14.11.2024, Revision 4060 of 2017, in which the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, passed the following order dated 21.02.2024;
The rights of the objectors remain unaffected because they are not a party to the Judgment and decree which is presently the subject of implementation implementation.. The only relief that the decree holders are entitled to is the grant of decree of declaration that the entry ntry in the revenue record in favour of the State Government shall be corrected and the legal representatives of Late. Sh. Bhagwant Singh shall be reflected as the owners in the column of ownership in the revenue record and the aforesaid declaration shall be subject to any further order passed by the competent authority under the 1953 Act read with the 1973 Act.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
2.) CWP No.5690 of 2018
Smt. Ravinder Pal Kal End another vs Financial inancial
Commissioner
ommissioner Punjab Present and others Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners Notice of motion for 06.07.2018 To be heard along with CWP No. 3278 of 2018. Meanwhile,, the parties are directed to maintain status quo, as it exists today regarding alienation of the property in dispute. However, operation tion of impugned order dated 04.12.2017 (Annexure P-1 and P-1A) 1A) shall remain stayed.
stayed."
(Emphasis added)
7. Ld. State Counsel clarifies that as the suit property was surplus, the surplus land had been resumed by the respondent respondent-State under the Land Ceiling Act and further sold to the object objectors, whose rights are to be necessarily reflected in the said Jamabandi. It is submitted that it is for this reasons that it is mentioned in Rapat No. 97 that the rights of the objectors shall remain unaffected.
4 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 15-01-2026 02:45:21 :::
CM-25624
25624-CII-2025
COCP-2660
2660-2025 (O&M) -5-
8. Ld. Senior Counsel for the petitioners further clarifies that rights of the objectors are still to be decided in respect of which several proceedings are pending;
pending including CWP CWP-5690-2018, titled as 'Smt. Smt. Ravinder Pal Kaur and another vs. Financial Commissioner Punjab, and others'.. It is pointed out that the Jamabandi for the year 2019 2019-2020 2020 (Annexure P-11), duly reflects the said position at Pg. 18-F of the CM. It is accordingly prayed that the decree be implemented at the earliest and necessary correction be made in the Rapat Entry No. 97 at page 18 18-B B of the true translated copy of Jamabandi for the year 2019 2019-2020 2020 (Annexure P-11 with CM-25624-CII-2025).
CM
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length; whereafter, learned counsel for the State on instructions from Ms. Swapandeep Kaur, Tehsildar, Patran, Patiala, who is present in Court undertakes that necessary correction shall be made in the Rapat Entry No. 97 at page No. 18-B 18 B of the true translated copy of Jamabandi for the year 2019-2020 (Annexure P-11 with CM-25624 25624-CII-2025), thereby reflecting the petitioners as owners of the suit property within a period of 08 weeks from today. It is further acknowledged by learned counsel for the respondent respondent-State that at page 18-F F of the CM-25624-CII-2025 2025 in the Jamabandi (Annexure P-11),
11), it is duly mentioned that CWP CWP-5690-2018, 2018, titled as 'Smt. Smt. Ravinder Pal Kaur and another vs. Financial Commissioner Punjab, and others', others , is pending adjudication before this Court wherein status quo has been granted qua the suit property and further alienation of the suit property has been stayed. It is directed that the said entry shall remain intact as it is, is till the decision of CWP CWP-5690-2018.
5 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 15-01-2026 02:45:21 :::
CM-25624
25624-CII-2025
COCP-2660
2660-2025 (O&M) -6-
10. Learnedd Senior Counsel for the petition petitioners submits that in view of the aforesaid undertaking given by learned counsel for the State the instant petition may be disposed disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner petitioners to revive the present contempt petition in case it is not complied with.
11. Ordered accordingly.
12. In view of the facts noted above and in view of the undertaking on behalf of the respondent respondent-State,, no further orders are required to be passed in the present petition, and the same stands disposed of, with liberty to the petitioners as aforesaid aforesaid.
13. Rule stands discharged.
14. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
12.01.2026 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) rishu JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No 6 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 15-01-2026 02:45:21 :::