Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in jamabandi for the year 2004-05, Gram Panchayat has been recorded as owner and in possession in column nos.4 and 5 respectively.

In pursuance to order dated 11.11.2013 of this Court, Naib Tehsildar has come present in Court along with original record of the jamabandi i.e. parat patwar as well as parat sarkar and photocopy of same jamabandi as has been incorporated in the computerized record of the Revenue Department. All the original record as well as computerized photocopies which have been shown to this Court by Naib Tehsildar clearly indicate that entries in column nos.4 and 5 of jamabandi have been made in favour of Gram Panchayat, however, learned Additional District Judge, Palwal has relied upon jamabandi for the year 2004-05 and observed that Gram Panchayat is shown to be owner of the suit land, but inhabitants of village are recorded in possession of the suit land. This observation of learned Additional District Judge is apparently contrary to the original revenue record i.e. jamabandi for the year 2004-05. It appears that some fake and forged revenue record was produced before learned Additional District Judge, Palwal which has resulted into setting aside the order of the trial Court. In view of this, order passed by learned Additional District Judge is perverse.