I.S.BINDRA, FC. - (1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, against the order dated 27.3.1998 of the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, whereby revision petition of the petitioner challenging order dated 16.5.1995 of the Collector, Tarn Taran who had upheld the order dated 20.3.1995 of the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Tarn Taran correcting in favour of the respondent the entry of Khasra girdawari pertaining to the crop Rabi 1995 in respect of land measuring 7K-15M comprised in Khasra No. 122, situate in Ahma Khurd, Tehsil Tarn Taran, District Amritsar, was dismissed.
(2.) RELEVANT facts, in brief, are that the respondent sought through an application the correction of Khasra girdawari in respect of crop Rabi 1994, on the basis of lease having been made by the Punjab Wakf Board in his favour, which was dismissed by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Jhabal Kalan vide order dated 10.10.1994 after recording evidence and visiting spot. Thereafter the respondent moved another application on 12.10.1994 for correction of Khasra girdawari for the crop Kharif 1995 which came up for disposal on the file of Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Tarn Taran. The petitioner allegedly refused to accept service of notice and did not come present at the spot on 10.3.1996 at the time of inspection. On the basis of the statements recorded by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Tarn Taran, the Khasra girdawari was corrected in respect of the crop Rabi 1995 vide impugned order dated 20.3.1995. Appeal and revision petition of the petitioner were also dismissed for the reason that the correction had been ordered after spot inspection. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the petitioner's first revision petition was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) and second revision petition by him is not maintainable. His objection was found not maintainable for the reason that when the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the revision petition on 27.3.1998, he was not competent to dismiss the same. He could either have referred it with his recommendation to the Financial Commissioner for its acceptance or have declined to refer the same. The objection was over-ruled. On merits, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been in possession of the land in dispute for the last about 30 years. Application of the respondent for correction in respect of the crop 1994 was dismissed on 10.10.1994 and his second application dated 12.10.1994 for correction of the subsequent crop i.e. Kharif 1994 was not maintainable. The petitioner had been found in possession during the course of spot inspection conducted by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Jhabal Kalan for disposal of earlier application of the respondent. No notice of the second application was issued to the petitioner and the false report of his refusal to accept notice was fabricated. He asserted that even spot had not been inspected and the Sarpanch and Lambardar had given affidavits to that effect. The claim of the petitioner is that he is a tenant under the Gram Panchayat whereas the respondent claims to be a lessee of the Punjab Wakf Board. The Punjab Wakf Board has nothing to do with the land in dispute. He also pleaded that both the parties had filed civil suits for permanent injunction and suit of the petitioner was decreed while that of the respondent was dismissed. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the respondent contended that all the three courts below have given the concurrent finding about the possession of the respondent over the land in dispute. Findings of the civil Court came later on. In reply to a question, he has stated that the Punjab Wakf Board transferred the possession of the land in dispute to the respondent. However, he has not been able to answer the questions that when admittedly the petitioner was found in possession in respect of the crop Rabi 1994, when and how the Punjab Wakf Board came into possession and when the possession was delivered to the respondent. There is a procedure prescribed for change of Khasra girdawari and it must be followed while effecting a change. In the instant case, it is not recorded that possession was taken over from the petitioner by the Punjab Wakf Board. Thus the question of delivery of possession by the Punjab Wakf Board to the respondent could not have arisen. In the peculiar facts of this case, this revision petition must succeed and the same is accepted and the impugned orders are set aside. Announced. .;