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 1/5^th share out of the property

i.e 1/10^th 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 1/5^th share out of

CWP No.8819 of 2009 3

property i.e. 1/10^th 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