Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajinder Kumar And Ors vs Financial Commissioner Punjab And Ors on 5 September, 2014
Author: Rajan Gupta
Bench: Rajan Gupta
CWP No.8819 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
C.W.P.No 8819 of 2009
Date of Decision: September , 2014.
Rajinder Kumar and others
....Petitioners
Versus
Financial Commisioner, Punjab and others
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr.R.S.Chauhan, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr.V.Ramswarup, Addl.A.G.,Punjab.
Mr.R.D.Bawa, Advocate
for respondent No.4.
Rajan Gupta, J (Oral)
Petitioners have filed a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing orders dated 25.4.2005 (Annexure P/11) passed by Collector, Ferozepur and dated 26.3.2009 (Annexure P/13) passed by Financial Commissioner, Punjab.
Operative part of the order passed by the Financial Commissioner reads as under:-
"I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The contents of decree dated 17.7.59 passed by Sh.Raghbir Singh Gupta, Sub Judge Ist Class, Fazilka vide which Maya Devi and her mother Hiran Bai were given 1/5th share out of the property i.e 1/10th share each, were closely perused in the presence of both the parties and it turned out that the contents of this decree stood unchallenged and were final. Accordingly, since the decree had become final, any wrong entry made ignoring the findings of CWP No.8819 of 2009 2 the decree could be corrected by way of farad badar in the jamabandi at any stage without any legal complications. In the light of this, the order dated 25.4.05 passed by the Collector (ADC), Ferozepur was fully justified and the order of the Commisioner dated 24.8.06 vide which he had negated the order passed by the Collector is not maintainable and needs to be set aside. Ordered accordingly. The file is sent back to the Assistant Collector Grade I, Fazilka for correcting the entries as per order of the Collector (ADC), Ferozepur dated 25.4.05."
Learned counsel for the petitioners have assailed the orders. According to him, the authorities did not consider the controversy in the right perspective.
Plea has been opposed by counsel representing the respondents. According to them, there is no infirmity with the orders passed by the authorities. No interference is thus warranted.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
It appears that Jaimal Ram was the original owner of the land, situated in village, Chuhriwala Dhanna, Tehsil Fazilka. He had two sons namely, Maan Singh and Kesu Ram. Maan Singh had two wives namely, Heera Bai and Kasturi Bai. A daughter namely, Maya Devi was born out of wedlock of Maan Singh and Heera Bai. From the other wife-Kasturi Bai, Maan Singh had a son namely, Gopi Ram and daughter Kamla. A suit was filed by Maya Devi against Jaimal Ram regarding property in dispute. Jaimal Ram expired during the pendency of suit. His L.Rs were brought on record. A compromise dated 17.7.1959 was effected between the parties. On the basis of same, Sub Judge Ist Class, Fazilka decreed the suit. Maya Devi and her mother Heera Bai were given 1/5th share out of CWP No.8819 of 2009 3 property i.e. 1/10th share each. Maya Devi was thus granted 6 bighas, 17 biswas out of total land measuring 68 bighas, 8 biswas, which was recorded in mutation No.1009. Another piece of land measuring 17 bighas, 4 biswas fell to share of Maya Devi from joint share of 125 bighas owned by Kesho Ram and Gopi Ram. Gopi Ram filed an application before the revenue authorities for correction of mutation as per decree dated 17.7.1959. Assistant Collector Grade-II, Fazilka found that wrong entries were made in the jamabandi for the year 1974-75. No correction was possible therein. Against the said order, petitioners filed an appeal before Sub Divisional Magistrate, Fazilka, who vide order dated 15.6.2004 remanded the case to the Assistant Collector Grade-II for decision afresh in view of para No.7.29 and 7.30 of Punjab Land Record Manual. However, Assistant Collector Grade-II again forwarded the case to Sub Divisional Magistrate vide order dated 25.6.2004 stating that he was not competent to make any correction in farad badar. The matter was disposed of by Sub Divisional Magistrate on 16.12.2004 holding that only civil court was competent authority in deciding the issue. Aggrieved, an appeal was filed before Collector, Ferozepur, who accepted the same and directed sanction of mutation as per share. This order was challenged by Kanta Devi, daughter of Maya Devi before the Divisional Commisioner, Ferozepur, who accepted the appeal vide order dated 24.8.2006. He observed that aggrieved party could approach the civil court. Resultantly, revision was preferred before Financial Commissioner. Said authority came to the conclusion that decree dated 17.7.1959 had attained finality. Thus any wrong entry made in the revenue record which was not in terms of the decree could be corrected by way of farad badar. He, thus, upheld CWP No.8819 of 2009 4 the order passed by the Collector and forwarded the case to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Fazilka for making necessary correction. No ground to interfere in the writ jurisdiction is made out. Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any legal infirmity with the order passed by the Financial Commisioner (Appeals), Punjab. Writ petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed.
(Rajan Gupta) Judge September , 2014.
BB