Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Briefly stated, two complaints were filed by the present petitioners i.e., one was filed by petitioner no.1-Sarabjit Singh to the Deputy Commissioner and another complaint was filed by all the petitioners to Director General of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh regarding cutting in the revenue record and for taking action against Charanjit Singh son of Dharm Singh, Lakhdip Singh son of Manohar Singh and Manohar Singh son of Dharm Singh on the plea that earlier the land in dispute bearing Khasra no. 1068 (2K 4M) was recorded as Gair Mumkin pond property of Gram Panchayat village Khachra and however, for the first time in Jamabandi for the year 1991-92 in the column of ownership instead of Gram Panchayat, names of Hira Singh, Ajaib Singh, Arjun Singh and Joginder Singh had been recorded. Hence, on the said complaints two inquiries were got conducted. One inquiry was made by Additional Deputy Commissioner, Faridkot and another inquiry was conducted by Superintendent of Police (D), Faridkot. In both the inquiries, it was found that the revenue record was tampered with and that even there was difference between Parat Patwar and Parat Sarkar of this Khasra number. It has been specifically mentioned in the inquiry reports, after perusing the entire record that earlier Gram Panchayat was recorded as owner of this land and however, for the first time in Jamabandi for the year 1991-92 after making some cutting, names of Hira Singh, Ajaib Singh, Arjan Singh and Joginder Singh were cropped up. Though the inquiry report was silent about entries in the Jambandi for the years 1996-97 and 2001-02, it was also found that there was cutting in the Jamabandi for the year 2006-07. However, the same was due to the fact that instead of Hira Singh names of LRs have been mentioned as Hira Singh had already expired. The Additional Deputy Commissioner in his inquiry report has come to the conclusion that primarily Darshan Singh, Patwari for the year 1991-92 and the area Kanungo for the year 2006-07 were responsible for these cuttings and they misused their position. However, case has also been registered against present petitioners that they had connived with the revenue officials for making these cuttings in the revenue record.